Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

Purge server cache

November 4[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 and then redirect to Philadelphia Convention. Redirects are cheap. :) - Mailer Diablo 08:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

20 Years Compromise[edit]

I'm not sure that this is a generally accepted term. Google search for "20 Years Compromise" yields only 12 hits, of these only 2 are relevant, each on internet forums posted by "Demosthenes" which is the same username as the author of this article. "Twenty Years Compromise" yields 1 hit, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Compare this to 16,400 hits for "Connecticut Compromise". JW1805 18:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect Of course, my apologies. -Demosthenes- 22:01, 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. Ral315 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A GANGSTER AND A SORCERER[edit]

Self-published, and therefore non-notable, novel. The Land 17:14, 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 REDIRECT to A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible as merged by User:So hungry. — JIP | Talk 07:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Lesson Is Learned, But the Damage is Irreversible[edit]

Article about a webcomic that does not assert its notability

  • Transfer to Comixpedia Delete. Gazpacho 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems non-notable (not linked by many other sites, no real evidence of widespread awareness). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Badly written and formatted article, but the comic itself has been fairly well-received by the webcomic community, authors and readers alike, and received a fair number of awards in the 2004 Webcomic Awards. Borderline case though. GeeJo (t) (c) 22:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - artistically and critically notable webcomic. See User:Snowspinner/Webcomics. Phil Sandifer 20:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "artistically notable" mean? Sounds unverifiable and POV. Dragonfiend 05:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 797,318 [1] suggests extremely little to no readership. Dragonfiend 22:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Merge. Having only 33 comics in archive accounts for extremely low Alexa. "one of the best webcomics of 2004 by The Webcomics Examiner" suggests some degree of notability. Dragonfiend 05:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wrote the article and apologize, there was already an article for the comic. I merged the two articles and it is now better than either of the originals. I would otherwise consider it a keep, it has won several awards and recognition from more prominent webcomics (perhaps most notably The Perry Bible Fellowship and Dinosaur Comics). Sorry, this was my first submission. So hungry 18:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer.. Redirect/Merge Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible as per So_hungry. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:37, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Wars By Web[edit]

Original research, non-notable, unencyclopaedic - contains lengthy walk-through of a game (unencyclopaedic), the substantive content of this page looks like it would make almost a whole para in Advance Wars if there were a URL - which there isn't. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:33, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alanisma[edit]

Vanity article/advertisement for a human ecology project that is mentioned only by its own site. Project has not started yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 08:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad per nom. --rob 08:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete advertisement, and even if it was not, patently non-notable (and for that matter probably unverifiable by those with neutral POV) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:29, 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 The result of this debate was Keep (8/3). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rafalowicz[edit]

The page is a vanity page. I will declares my bias and say I know the guy in question however it is still a vanity page for a non-notable individual AdelaideRandel 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete As per nomination.WP:AUTO AdelaideRandel 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In movie databases (IMDb, NYT, etc.)
oops - forgot to sign (original vote was --> 05:22, 4 November 2005 ERcheck) ERcheck 12:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although Shine (film) performance significant, does not pass WP:BIO... and the rest is vanity jnothman talk 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. He played David Helfgott as a child in Shine a very notable Australian film. Geoffrey Rush won an Oscar as best actor for his portrayal of the adult David Helfgott. This role in itself makes him notable enough for mine. Article needa a bit of a clean up Capitalistroadster 16:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said on the talk page it is fairly evident from Google search that this guy is notable however the page is as if it was written by the subject themselves. Even so, that's a cleanup issue not a deletion issue. -- Francs2000 18:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not (yet) meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. pfctdayelise 02:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and Francs2000 (shouldn't that be Euros300 now?) Tonywalton  | Talk 12:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. No Matter if it receives hits in Google, the individual has a single relatively minor role in one movie. And it does not meet the guidelines in WP:BIO. AdelaideRandel 15:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has appeared in at least two Australian feature films, one of which won Academy Awards. --Cnwb 07:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cnwb. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although only just. Disclaimer: I do know the subject of the article, but not personally.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Snottygobble | Talk 06:16, 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 DELETE. "Ankronikka" is a very notable show in Finland but this article doesn't have anything to do with the show itself, and only consists of a non-notable forum inside joke mocking the Finnish language. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ankronikka[edit]

"The Finnish version of Disney's DuckTales." The reason it has been given its own page is the fact that there was some sort of "fad" on an internet bulletin board called YTMND where users would try to faux-transliterate the theme-song lyrics into English. The posting of song lyrics is copyvio, but even if they're purged, the page is little more than what seems to me a brief internet fad nowhere near the magnitude of the Star Wars kid or All Your Base Are Belong to Us. Googling Ankronikka fad -wikipedia gives 10 unique results. BrianSmithson 14:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My gut tells me Delete: non-notable, copy-vio. BrianSmithson 13:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nom. (and my gut tells me to sit very still, since I had surgery yesterday for an umbilical hernia) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pois, ei merkittävä. Poise, a meerkat to view. Or as you all seem to say in English Wikipedia, "Delete, not notable". --Wwwwolf 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (with further silliness a few days later.)[reply]
  • Delete - Funny as hell, but just doesn't belong on Wikipedia.PiccoloNamek 17:37, 6 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 FireFox 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Carboni[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio maybe vanity --JAranda | watz sup 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. ComCat, please expend a bit more energy when nominating articles. "NN, D" tells us nothing other than "I really want this deleted, but I can't say why". --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BIO. 280 Google hits for Anthony Carboni see [2].

and he's not on IMDb so he doesn't meet our notability requirement for actors. Capitalistroadster 03:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge that fact into Attack of the Show and delete unless/until he becomes a new host. The claim appears to be unverified on this page, but the people working on Attack of the Show will know enough about it to not it it stand if it's not true. Jacqui ★ 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We99 17:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he may indeed be notable when and if he replaces Kevin Rose on Attack of the Show but untill then the best I could suggest is a merge and in fact he is already mentioned in the Attack of the show article. Falerin 01:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he isn't non-notable. Private Butcher 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bio. —Cleared as filed. 09:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless he does become the new host. If he does, just expand the article. --G VOLTT 15:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn-bio, and as for a possible future role, WP:NOT a crystal ball. MCB 04:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:BIO and crystal ball.Gateman1997 20:38, 7 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 = keep (4/2). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Fitzroy George Hay, 13th Earl of Kinnoull[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. I can find no record of it, and believe me, I tried. If someone can establish that it's true, I assure you that nothing would delight me more. This guy is linked to from Earl of Kinnoull, but nothing I've found suggests he deserves his own article. Chick Bowen 23:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep even though I am no supporter of the aristocracy, this is verifiable and encyclopaedic. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; notable personage.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 = keep (5/6). 16:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Bay of Plenty Electricity[edit]

Contributor of this one line article is furthering an agenda at expense otherwise non-notable subject FRS 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom--FRS 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom--Medude24 23:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of 7 electricity companies in NZ according to the template, all of which should have articles. It is marked pov, which is the appropriate response. Deletion is not. CalJW 23:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of the six other electric companies, three have neutral content; the other three have conclusory agnda-furthering one liners: i.e.,
"XXX is the third cleanest electricity retailer in NZ because it generates 100% of its electricity from renewables but it didn't answer questions from Greenpeace NZ,"
"According to Greenpeace, [YYY] is the least environmentally friendly electricity retailer in NZ because its ... parent company is planning to build a coal powered generator," and
"ZZZ is the second cleanest electricity retailer in NZ because it generates 100% of its electricity from renewables but hasn't ruled out burning fossil fuels in the future"
that should be deleted imo--FRS 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one and the other three until someone writes a decent article. -- Kjkolb 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Olorin28 00:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems to meet WP:CORP in having verifiable third party sources but is substub at the moment. Would vote to keep a decent stub on this article. Capitalistroadster
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.
  • Keep: I've done the obvious and removed the POV rubbbish, replacing it with a neutral statement and a stub tag. As far as I can tell this is a keeper per WP:CORP. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just zis Guy's rewrite. Well done to him for rewriting it. Capitalistroadster 17:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. --A D Monroe III 20:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is not part of deletion criteria, this subject is verifiable. Trollderella 19:55, 7 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 07:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop (band)[edit]

Does not comply with WP:MUSIC L3TUC3 08:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bravenet RPG[edit]

NN RPG of some sort. Google concurs --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:34, 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 the result of this debate was No consensus = keep (17/21). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Harte Middle School (San Jose, California)[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hey it's my junior high school! Delete it anyway. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Please be aware that this nominator has a history of frivolous deletion proposals and is also the subject of an open RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat. Silensor 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should discuss the article, not the nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Silensor . Dlyons493 Talk 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I could find all of that information out via google ([3]) so we don't need an article. The whole thing is terribly cheery, the school is "outstanding" there are "great" places. It's impossible to salvage without a complete rewrite, but it still wouldn't change the fact that it isn't notable. Broken S 01:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BrokenSegue nn middle school --JAranda | watz sup 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable middle school despite being named for a famous American writer, unless it is clear before expiration of AfD that someone has made a reasonable start on the "complete rewrite" Broken says it needs. I just listed this on User:GRider/Schoolwatch. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing vote now that the article has received attention. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please stop nominating schools, especially when the nom consists of nothing more than "NN, D". As long as both sides of the debate continue attacking each other in AfD, the issue will never be resolved. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cheery is not a valid reason for deletion. —RaD Man (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • nor is it a valid reason to keep Broken S 02:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --InShaneee 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have more sympathy if we are talking about a HIGH school here instead of a middle school... Olorin28 02:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete middle schools (and other items with a default presumption of non-notability) unless (A) they play a key role in the history or development of middle schooling, or pedagogy in general or (B) they are otherwise the subject of sustained interest on the regional, national or international level, or reasonably expected to be so. Neither is asserted in this article. flowersofnight (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable school Bwithh 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm personally in favour of keep schools, but this is so poorly written, and we're not likely to have a Wikipedian that could fix this up, and it's not worth searching one out. I was personally hoping it was named after Bret Hart, from the WWF/WWE. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete. Non-notable middle school. *drew 04:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn school. ERcheck 04:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand. CalJW 05:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep school stub article by newbie. It definitely needs improvement, but its a start. -- DS1953 talk 06:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools are notable.  ALKIVAR™ 06:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nkstrt. Gazpacho 07:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. NatusRoma 07:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Almaden Valley or the school district this belongs. Local notability only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it might help explain some of why Howcheng is Howcheng. :) (That's not meant to be a personal attack, just an expression of interest) Oh, and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Jacqui ★ 07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how well it explains me, as it's been over 20 years since junior high (Bret Harte class of 1983). (: --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per flowersofnight, whose vote happens to bring up the same points as my criteria for inclusion for schools below the high school level. --Idont Havaname 07:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, no need to throw away rob's work. Kappa 08:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, would be nn, but per above comments, there is an arguement. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 09:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not all schools are encyclopedic, and that's especially true below high school level. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information into articles about the author and the county. Alphax τεχ 10:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, four walls and a roof do not an encyclopaedic article make. Proto t c 11:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As usual. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable middle school. FCYTravis 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important we do not need to erase it Yuckfoo 17:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally unimportant topic. In the unfortunate case this is kept it should be moved to Bret Harte Middle School, San Jose, California to bring it in line with other school articles.Gateman1997 18:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per howcheng, when someone who attended the school doesn't think it is notable...--Isotope23 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Silensor Ejrrjs | What? 22:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the basis of this article, utterly without merit. If I were looking for information about this school, I would come away from this article knowing even less than I did before. Denni☯ 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are notable for reasons stated above. Matt Yeager 01:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for my reasons, see User:Xoloz/Schools. Xoloz 05:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Silensor. Adbarnhart 07:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm from the camp of people who think schools are notable enough for inclusion. —Brim 06:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. rewrite is good. --Vsion 07:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete --redstucco 10:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school Babajobu 10:39, 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 has been speedied for being a short article whose only purpose is to disparage its subject. Ingoolemo talk 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brokerage America[edit]

This article is a personal attack on Andrew Sycoff. See also the previously nominated Midwest Discount Brokers - Dalbury 22:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, although I believe it is possible this may qualify for inclusion under WP:CORP, the firm does/did exist and was/is publicly quoted; if it genuinely did conduct 1% of all trade on NASDAQ that would be notable. As-is the content is neither verifiable nor encyclopaedic, and unless someone with a neutral POV and some actual evidence comes forward I support deletion on the basis that it is hard to salvage a usable stub from this without a lot of work. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The company in question apparently conducted some trades as a market maker for Huntingdon Life Sciences (see [4]) - this is apparently a hatchet job by the ALF. Can we have it speedied please? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:35, 5 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 List of Internet slang. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTDTGTTS[edit]

Delete. NN initialism - hoax PJM 18:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a slang dictionary definition and can't be expanded much. Feel free to merge if there's a list of Usenet slang. - Mgm|(talk) 19:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per MgM. You persuaded me again :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 600+ Google hits makes it significant enough to include in the list. No need for a detailed explanation of the meaning, and I think it's very, very unlikely that this can ever be more than a dictdef. In adding the definition to List of Internet slang I used the edit comment "/* B */ From information originally contributed by 65.208.22.25 on 13:45, 4 November 2005" satisfies GFDL adequately, so don't please don't give me any grief about "merge and delete" being invalid... So, I've already done a merge, and my vote is:
  • Redirect to List of Internet slang, because redirects are cheap and someone might try to look it up, but Delete would also be fine. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC) P. S. Actually I just discovered that a search on Google GROUPS (USENET) gives 12000+ hits. GIven that generally a topic will get about 1/10 to 1/4 as many hits in Google Groups as it does in a Google Web search, this is strong evidence that this really is an online idiom. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect now that it's included in the list. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 5 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 (which has already been done). - ulayiti (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie Smuggler[edit]

Slang definition, possibly neologism, contributed by Logarithmicpotato (talk • contribs). (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algebraic potato).

That would be interesting, but no. "budgie" is Australian slang for budgerigar, and the name "budgie smuggler" is a humourous reference to the appearance that someone is trying to conceal a small bird in their underpants. Slac speak up! 04:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect as per the Australians above. JPD (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki? Does Wiktionary take slang definitions? BTW I believe it is "Budgie Smuggler", which has roughly twice as many Ghits as "Budgy Smuggler" (and most of those are from a brand that has taken that name, I believe). And does Banana hammock really deserve a page, then? pfctdayelise 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect Why are we even discussing this? We should just 'merge' and create a redirect, the only links to the page are discussion links. In fact, I just did it. :-) Ben Aveling 06:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for discussing it is to discover the community concensus. In this case concensus appears to be merge/redirect rather than the original proposal to delete. What made you decide to merge to Speedo (the company/brandname) rather than Speedo (suit style) the generic description for the style? --Scott Davis Talk 11:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What struck me was the fact that every person here seems to have put more time and thought into thier contribution to this page (a) than went into the budgie smuggler page in the first place and (b) than it would have taken to just fix what is obviously a joke and a poorly excuted one. For a page with a lot of effort, even misguided effort (such as some of Joe Dolcie's pages) it's worth spending time to do the right thing, but not for a one line 10 second joke like this page. IMHO, It shouldn't have been raised for discussion, it should just have been fixed. Courage and all that. Nothing is irreversible.
I decided to merge to Speedo (brand) rather than Speedo (suit style) because Speedo (brand) is more focused on that style, while speedo suit style covers pretty much the full range of mens' bathers, short of neck-to-knee. Also, speedo (brand) has a photo, which does clarify the expression, if I may put it thus.
Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 5 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(?!?) 06:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burpies[edit]

Original research with no context. feydey 12:53, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush bashing[edit]

Unencyclopaedic article, potentially violating of NPOV by trivializing criticism to mindless ad hominem attack. Frostyservant 04:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination.
  • Delete Bashing is a general term, and applies to anyone. No reason to have a special page devoted to Bush bashing. Cynicism addict 05:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the Cynic. Andrew Levine 05:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cynicism addict. rmosler 06:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cynicism Addict. --JJay 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update as this is a well known and widely spoken term, or perhaps move to Wikitionary, and give a better description of term. wikicali
  • Delete. Anyone can be bashed. --Optichan 19:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains no information beyond what is implicit in the title. The phrase "Bush bashing" is not an idiom, and has no overtones or connotations beyond the plain meaning of the words. Do not move to Wiktionary, nor we do not need entries here or in Wiktionary for "Alito-bashing", "Hollander bashing," "Big East bashing," "administration-bashing," "BCS bashing," "America bashing," "Brit-bashing," "Bloomy bashing," "Miers-bashing," and "Catholic bashing," to pick a few at random from a Google News search. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. HGB 22:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Astroview120mm 02:48, 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. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capiterialist[edit]

Neologism. Dicdef. No google hits DJ Clayworth 21:08, 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 no consensus (1k, 2d). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Jaspers[edit]

Article on al fresco food outlet, i.e. a burger van. Claims to reflect Devonian culture, but don't see any notability here JJay 17:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 17:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amusing hoax. Possibly reflects mesolithic culture more than devonian. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is written in an amusing way, but the place exists as its website proves, it seems it does have quite a cult following - can wikip really be expected to list every burger van in the world? NO. But this place is well known. Could it be cut down and language changed to make it more valid? bjrobinson 09/11/05
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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(?!?) 06:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cardling[edit]

apparently non-existent/neologistic would-be dicdef, Google hits are for surname or mistypings of "cradling" Flapdragon 01:06, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Baptist Church[edit]

Worse than a substub. Only mentions a location says nothing more. I doubt there's much to say about individual churches, but this is definitely not it. Delete unless seriously expanded. Wikipedia articles are NOT not placeholders. - Mgm|(talk) 14:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Come back when there's something to say, I guess :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — As above. — RJH 16:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did someone say caramel? --Optichan 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of thousands. Gazpacho 20:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, And the lord said delete. Gateman1997 23:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because churches are private institutions, I can create one in my backyard (or my imagination.) There must be a notability bar, and small congregations don't reach it. Xoloz 05:45, 5 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(?!?) 06:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carnage control[edit]

Non-notable band, probable vanity. 0 Google hits found. Ifnord 16:56, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Defense[edit]

Original research-- JoanneB 08:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Looks like gibberish to me... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 08:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essay/ original research. Kappa 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. --Delirium 09:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikisource, it's an essay. Alphax τεχ 10:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes you believe that this belongs on Wikisource? The article presents no evidence that it does. Uncle G 11:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, or transwiki per above if you think it makes enough sense (it doesn't to me, but I am an Anglican). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Optichan 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Essay / original research. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:35, 6 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. Song lyrics are not Wikipedia articles. - Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catscratch Songbook[edit]

A "songbook" of lyrics from the Nickelodeon series Catscratch. It's possible the brevity of them makes this not a copyright violation, but even if not, Wikipedia isn't a lyrics repository. Anything interesting about the lyrics (if anything) can go in the article on the series. --Delirium 08:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you're allowed to reprint entire songs this way. You can use portions of songs, though. I'd support a merge of excerpts of the lyrics to the series pages if the editors there would find them useful (though I'm not sure how useful they;d be). Barring that, delete as copyvio. --Jacqui ★ 23:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Safety Professional[edit]

Already transwiki-ed, will not make a meaningful redirect. brenneman(t)(c) 11:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I originally thought this was a merge and redirect candidate, to American Board of Safety Professionals, but Googling around I can't find much evidence that this body is genuinely significant. It doesn't appear to have a website. Googling [5] shows remarkably few hits, all definitions like this one, and nothing about the institute itself. What's going on? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:06, 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.


Goto www.bcsp.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.153.236 (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (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. Ral315 (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chikin Stoo[edit]

I cannot find any relevant Google hits for the name of this band, despite its supposed claims to fame, so I suspect it to be a hoax. Dglynch 04:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 04:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. *drew 04:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nomination AdelaideRandel 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Lack of verfiability & suspected hoax. Eddie.willers 05:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw them at Candlestick park!!!!!!! 12:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)~~Odyssiancheesecow (This user's first edit (contribs) occurred after this artile was nominated for deletion. - Dalbury 21:45, 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 no consensus (2k, 1d). - Mailer Diablo 08:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Who?[edit]

Horribly formatted and written Spongebob episode. I love Spongebob, but seriously, this must go. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has a summary further down the page and lists some useful facts. Keep, but removed empty headers and copyvio lyrics. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we do have means for having articles cleaned-up. That an article is of lower grade does not establish a lack of utility or verifiability, nor does it constitute a reason for deletion. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote & comment - the Wikipedia community should really try and reach a consensus on individual television episodes. In my opinion, the rule should be roughly the same as it is for individual songs: delete them all, even if it's a notable series, unless the episode is truly notable: a massive, sustaining cultural phenomenon on the level of Who Shot JR? (which, ironically, doesn't even have an article...) We should just put a link to one of the millions of episode guides online on the main pages of each show. StarryEyes 23:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • relisting. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as after viewing the main Sponge Bob page it appears every other episode has it' own page. So unless all those pages are to be deleted also, it appears that this nomination for deletion is based on someones opinion that either this one particular episode or this one particular article is not to their liking. That is not a good enough reason for deletion and anyway, I think it is good to have details of all individual episodes for a TV programme: you cannot just pick and choose certain episodes which stand out as what actually 'stands out' is all POV. Evil Eye 13:40, 6 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  20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Shaddapology[edit]

Not notable, probably vanity, Delete. See also Shaddapology abakharev 06:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. jnothman talk 06:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably a hoax (zero Google hits). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, there are problems with verifiability with zero Google hits. However, the person connected with Joe Dolce is notable according to WP:NMG having a number #1 hit with Shaddup You Face in Australia, the UK and elsewhere in 1980-81. I was proposing verifying it and adding it to his article which is in a disgraceful shape or writing an article about Shaddup You Face. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 09:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 16:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as with related articles. --Roisterer 03:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete related vanity pages as well, as per comments at Shaddapology. Or just maybe merge -> User:DolceJ. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think Joe Dolce owes us all a Shaddapology for posting this rubbish. Snottygobble | Talk 06:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus. Someone care to do the honors? Ben Aveling 07:22, 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 speedily deleted by User:FCYTravis. --Stormie 03:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clive tucceri[edit]

non-notable, probably a vanity page. Bachrach44 02:48, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coinarama[edit]

Coinarama is a "game which essentially involves flicking another person's coin (or "coy'en") off a table". It clocks up about 350 Google hits, 150 of which are unique. There is a silly website devoted to the sport. Pilatus 01:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-notable, and disgusting sense of humour. "America in shock as popular Islamic group ‘Al-Qaeda’ launches an attack on the civilised world in bringing down the World Trade Centre. It is revealed that over 50% of workers in the two buildings were playing Coinarama on impact, a shocking statistic that prompts George W. Bush to place the FMDC on the Axis of Evil." I'm not against making fun of sensative events in certain situations, but that's just beyond me. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete as nonsense. Not even witty enough for BJAODN. Eddie.willers 05:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is likely a hoax. All Google references to the “Federation...” in this article seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. ♠DanMS 20:47, 5 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Opp[edit]

Probably vanity, but not 100% sure. --Alan Au 05:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probably vanity, but 3 articles on an ezine is not sufficient notability =P jnothman talk 06:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save this one, Dan is actually one of the more popular writers on the website Points in Case, which is among the most well-known to college students. Points in Case is a new entry on Wiki, so there should be additional info about him to follow. Pointsi 13:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC) his user's first edit (contribs) was on November 1, 2005, and almost all his edits have been on articles about "Points in Case" and its staff members. I think they all should be looked at for possible AfD. - Dalbury 21:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete And I'm not sure Points in Case shouldn't be on AfD either. Marcus22 15:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Dalbury 21:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonnotable ERcheck 02:47, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death to the Grey Man[edit]

Non-notable, see Carnage control. Ifnord 17:02, 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 - FireFox 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discover dogs[edit]

obvious advert, and very short shelf life too Flapdragon 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And also some probable copyvio (trivial amount, but then the whole article is trivial) from the Kennel Club website [6]. Flapdragon 01:02, 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 redirect to church etiquette. Although O^O may have a point... -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 06:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dressing for church[edit]

POV, original research, no real content, Western-centric, unreferenced, no chance of going anywhere. Redirect to Christian Dress-sense or delete -Doc (?) 10:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to church etiquette (which I just created) on the grounds that it has some point, but this small article is not in itself going to be encyclopaedic, being a small part of a larger discussion. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We are rewarding this guy (and his infinite sock puppets) by debating all these nonencylopedic articles instead of just deleteng them. -O^O
  • Redirect, per Just zis Guy -GTBacchus 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the new article Church etiquette now that it has been created. GuardDog 21:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Garr 23:16, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Logeais[edit]

Delete, non-notable. google search for Earl Logeais both with and without Purple heart turned up nothing in first several pages.-- Syrthiss 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If the information was verifiable (i.e. cited sources), would that make the guy notable? If so, it should be tagged for citation first, I'd say. This could be a bit of oral history recording. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I would accept that. I'm not entirely sure its not a hoax page though, based on me finding it by looking at the contributions of an Alexander Graham Bell vandal. The creator's contribs aren't *all* vandalism so I wanted it up here for comment. --Syrthiss 19:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: purple hearts are given for being wounded, not bravery. -- Kjkolb 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified and a possible hoax. As I said before, purple hearts are not for bravery. Also, a WWII soldier killing three enemy soldiers with his bare hands seems very suspicious. -- Kjkolb 05:21, 8 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article.

Ehsan Jamal Khan[edit]

Obvious vanity. David Sneek 08:03, 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 Merge. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Harper[edit]

Finishing uncompleted nomination. No vote. --Alan Au 20:46, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emachineshop[edit]

Profile of non-notable company, basically an advertisement BeteNoir 00:59, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esmat danesh[edit]

Unverifiable bio. Specifically, the nomination of subject and her husband for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize is not verified by info on the Nobel site. She is a university pyschology prof. ERcheck 05:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. jnothman talk 06:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Difficult to verify, but it's the only other article by the creator of the very solid article Shirin Ebadi so I'm reluctant to dismiss it out of hand. Dlyons493 Talk 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It has the ring of truth but is unverifiable. (I know, I've tried!) Marcus22 15:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobel Prize nominations are inherently unverifiable -- they don't give that information out for at least 50 years after the nomination. --Carnildo 23:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Crusaders[edit]

Delete NN "crew" (gang or group) PJM 17:49, 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 deleted as a dic def. On empty pages we already have a line saying "Look for <title> in Wiktionary, our sister dictionary project." - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feat[edit]

delete link plus dicdef. Seems like it should be speedy but I couldn't think of an exact justification; it's not quite just a link. --Trovatore 04:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dicdef; very few pages link to it jnothman talk 06:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the wiktionary definition, using the {{wi}} tag. I was looking for a suitable redirect within Wikipedia, and all that happened was I got irritated by achievement redirecting to goal (management). Proto t c 11:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment you can certainly move the definition to Wiktionary, but you can't redirect there (transwiki redirects don't work). --Trovatore 14:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment But the {{wi}} works well. See Coreligionist for an example of this. Proto t c 09:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought those uses were mainly intended to deter the re-creation of dicdefs where they keep popping up. If we're going to have one for every slightly non-everyday word, then why not just allow dicdef articles, and merge Wiktionary into Wikipedia? "Feat" is really a word that every native speaker past Grade 7 knows; I don't see any reason to need to link it in article text. --Trovatore 17:08, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flat margaret[edit]

Does not comply to the WP:Music L3TUC3 08:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Flat Margaret is a small band from Seattle, WA. Their music could best be described as not meeting WP:Music. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are probably hoping to release an album some time in the future. The Land 17:20, 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 Keep (7/1). Nom withdrawn anyways. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frawg[edit]

This article is about a brand-spanking new drink. As such, it has no real notoriety. There's nothing more that can be written about this besides a stub anyway. Jacqui ★ 18:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm withdrawing this one -- you guys convinced me. Jacqui ★ 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, peopel would want to be able to read about Pepsi products in an unlimited encyclopedia. Possibly merge somewhere appropriate. Kappa 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Seems to be non-notable. I could see re-introducing this article later if the drink becomes notable. Holdek (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regrettably. Any product from Pepsi is probably notable, and the fact that this is released in an exclusive deal with one retailer makes it moderately noteworthy. Sounds disgusting, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if people see this in the store they might want to type it into Wikipedia and see what comes up. Expand article though. -Andrew 19:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, stubby but relays basic information about a Pepsi product. Products by a notable company deserve an article themselves. - Mgm|(talk) 19:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bit of research proves its existence. And Pepsi products are notable. --Optichan 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Pepsi products are notable. Carioca 21:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but that sounds horrible. Meelar (talk) 02:51, 5 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fredryk Phox[edit]

Vanity bio about a "cult internet personality". 66.191.124.236 06:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has been edited to reduce said "vanity", shows mostly facts. That guy is pretty funny, though. .--24.20.33.161 07:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (This user has only edited (contribs) the Fredryk Phox article and this discussion. - Dalbury 22:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. Still looks like a vanity article to me. - Dalbury 22:12, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Galore Junior Kart Championship[edit]

Unverifiable, created along with The Principality of Galore and other questionable articles. JPD (talk) 14:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Smith (Parody Song writer)[edit]

Vanity with assertion of notability, but not notable. No WP:MUSIC to be seen. — brighterorange (talk) 14:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GenieLab[edit]

Wikipedia policy on deletion page states that "All article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable". In addition, this article would be acceptable if this company would have innovated in the field, which is not the case. This is more on the level of a school project and is largely inspired by preceding academic research and publications 128.193.169.205 21:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apparently non-notable company, I Googled for it and most of the hits were by the proprietor promoting the thing, no discernible notability there, no evidence of significant user base. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per JzG Pete.Hurd 22:20, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GigaPOP[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic, reads like a joke (see the image)

  • I can't decide whether this is a spoof, a badly botched advert, a neologism or a serious attmept at an article which completely fails. = Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the thing actually exists [7], I do not see anything that can be saved from the current version of the article. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that the image has no copyright status declared. I'll mark it. - Dalbury 01:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. Whatever the reason for posting this text, the information contained in this blurb is not useful. CKA3KA (Skazka) 19:04, 8 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. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GMHSTGBI[edit]

Delete. NN initialism - hoax PJM 19:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Syrthiss 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike BTDTGTTS, I have never seen this and it scores zero on the Google test. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usenet slang should give Google hits. - Mgm|(talk) 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. No evidence presented as being in any significant real use. No Google hits on the Web (unlike BTDTGTTS, which gets 600+). No hits in Google GROUPS, which is even more indicative. (BTDTGTTS gets 12000+ in Groups!) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologismonym. Flowerparty■ 20:57, 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.  Denelson83  20:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God-Jesus the Robot![edit]

Three guys and a demo. From their website, "Q:When will you finally put out an actual album? A:Album? Who ever promised one of those." Fails WP:MUSIC. —Cryptic (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Funny as they are, with a great wikified page, I don't think they pass WP:MUSIC to be noteable. On a side note: I see a lot of garage bands and aspiring musicians invading WP. Time for Speedy deletion stub on these things? L3TUC3 11:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I support the idea of a speedy category for band vanity, I think there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that genuinely notable bands will not be excluded. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. And agree re: Speedy for band vanity. Why not? Marcus22 15:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And that sounds like it might be a good idea. --Optichan 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry guys, didn't realize there was the WP:MUSIC policy. I should look into these things more closely in the future. --Iswm 18:24, 5 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grow RPG and Grow Cube[edit]

Not quite speedy but not notable game

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. See also Grow Cube. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fun game, but not noteworthy, and this is a how-to. --InShaneee 02:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A wonderful game, but not notable. Also one in which spoilers are even more pointless than usual: if you know how to win the game it isn't any fun at all. If the artilce had included any information at all about the game's creator and his inspiration, my vote might have to be 'keep', but as it is... - Squibix 15:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grusk[edit]

Dictionary entry, Non-enciclopedic topic abakharev 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Can't verify usage. --JJay 16:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury 22:21, 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.  Denelson83  20:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Health At Every Body Size[edit]

Original research unsalvagable -Doc (?) 11:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research duplicating other content and doing it much less well. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate content - see for example nutrition and somatotype. I am less sure that it is original research, as the article can be distilled in the statement "what you eat can affect your health", which seems to me to be a banal truism. Sliggy 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was hoping to engage the original contributor more productively, but it looks like they've given up. --William Pietri 17:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not OR (though the title isn't encyclopedic), but already covered properly, as Sliggy has pointed out. Delete. Jacqui ★ 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom Prashanthns 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Edwardian 07:01, 7 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 The result of this debate was Speedy delete as vandalism.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the digital camera[edit]

The title suggests that it actually has the potential to be quite a decent article. But not the way it is at the moment. XYaAsehShalomX 17:32, 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 No consensus = keep (2/2). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Home Is Where The Hate Is[edit]

Delete. NN EP by NN band. PJM 21:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although the band does appear to be on the up, they have reportedly toured as support for another band which scores slightly better on the neverheardofit scale. Note that the band's article is currently tagged as copyvio so, PJM, if you're researching this one you might want to bring that forward as well. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see. Thanks. PJM 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see them meeting WPNMG criteria (#3 knocks them right out). PJM 22:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, as WP:NMG is not a policy, just a guideline. Many see coverage in the All Music Guide as a good sign of notability. Punkmorten 00:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they meet at least one criteria in WP:MUSIC, the band is notable (if copyvio); therefore, their albums are in as well. Keep. Meelar (talk) 02:41, 5 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Keep the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Management Lucknow[edit]

The page gives no concrete information and has been lifted out of the institutes web site. Makes no sense keeping the article. (preceding unsigned comments by 203.199.16.85 (talk · contribs) 4 November 2005)

  • OK, I fixed the POV but only by deleting the gushing prose, so it now deserves the stub tag more than it did. Hopefully someone with good knowledge of the place and a reasonably dispassionate view will now "do the needful" as they say. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I voted keep on the AFD for a different campus of the institute as well. AFD is not cleanup. flowersofnight (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Though the article and the site of IIM-L are lousy, IIMs are top business schools in India. I can see that most of the first line of the article comes from [8] but the rest seems okay. Someone made a bad-faith nomination for IIM Calcutta last week. That AfD was removed quickly after it received 7 speedy keeps and 10 keeps. Tintin 12:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All articles on the Indian Institutes of Management need editing help, however, they are some of the best institutes in the region and have global potential. doles 15:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It is generally agreed that verifiable tertiary education institutes are notable. Well done, Just zis Guy, for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please there are a lot of reasons that it makes sense thank you just zis guy Yuckfoo 17:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for obvious reasons. It is one of the most prominent B-Schools in India --Ravikiran 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The same IP has also nominated for deletion the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta and removed two times a quite objective ranking from the article of the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith noms of all IIMs. Cleaned up the article and have tried to correct POV issues. Needs cleanup and substance. Prashanthns 17:14, 5 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 to Tutorial D per Paolo Liberatore's information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial D[edit]

Can't find any relavent google hits [9]. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this seems to be complete vaporware. chowells 14:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article makes it perfectly clear that this is pie in the sky. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, speculative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachrach44 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 4 November 2005
  • Merge with Tutorial D. I have found a reference [10]. This appears to be a future plan of evolution of something existing. Therefore, a sentence about it can be kept in the article about the thing that already exists. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:39, 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. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent elephant[edit]

Original research, fairly unencyclopaedic tone, nothing important that isnt available at Elephant. Also, even if kept, Elephant intelligence seems a more logical name. GeeJo (t) (c) 22:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, everything worthwhile here is covered far better already at Elephant. Would favor a merge-and-delete if there seemed to be anything worth merging. --Aquillion 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopaedic foolishness. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it has potential to be developed into a real article, but there is no content in this that's worth keeping. —Brim 06:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Edwardian 07:03, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Nevsky[edit]

  • Vanity Page, not worthy of an entry on wikipedia -- Looks like somebody's roleplaying character Abschalten
  • Uhm, delete - sounds like it's from a book, or play. Copyvio? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Seems like home made fiction to me. -- L3TUC3 10:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Very likely someone's roleplaying character, for which they can just as easily use their own webspace instead of abusing Wikipedia's resources. Satanovich? I think that says more than enough. Wikipedia is for research, not fantasy.--BullitNutz 11:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:20, 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. Kirill Lokshin 04:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Allen Starkloff[edit]

Self-published science fiction author (Xlibris is a vanity press.) Novels have an amazon.com sales rank of None. 66.191.124.236 06:54, 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 wasThe result of this debate was No consensus = keep.May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry E. Smith[edit]

Spam and WP:VAIN Kgf0 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (nom) Conspiracy author's vanity spam page. If not delete, then userfy; present user page reads See my main Wikipedia entry at Jerry E. Smith. Subject is article's principle author. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine points 2 & 3, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider point 1. --Kgf0 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pintele Yid 04:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... needs some cleanup, but subject probably meets criteria for author bio (> 5000 books). The current Amazon sales rank of the 1998 book HAARP is #25,200; though not a "best seller", decent sales. ERcheck 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup, per ERcheck jnothman talk 05:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per ERcheck. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ERcheck, but only if tagged for cleanup. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the article needs some attention. --BorgHunter (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. --Holderca1 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy This is a user page not an article. Marcus22 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity self-published press kit. Let him make his own user page. Ifnord 17:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Page created by User:Jerry E. Smith; his user page refers people to the article. I've had a go at ripping apart the advertising garbage and adding criticisms of this guy's work. I can't believe 6 people took the time to vote keep, but nobody bothered to even add a cleanup tag. The article is substantially better, but it's still borderline. No vote. --Scïmïłar parley 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, low notability as an author...--Isotope23 20:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: If this is deleted, Jim Keith and George Piccard should likely be nominated as well.--Scïmïłar parley 21:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all for your comments, especially those who voted to Keep. I made the mistake of putting up this page, then reading the policy and guidelines pages. You are quite right, there was too much vanity in it. I have attempted to make it a more standard encyclopedia type entry. I hope these changes are acceptible. FYI: my HAARP book is NOT self-published and has sold over 18,000 copies and is now in its seventh printing. Our Spear of Destiny book just came out in July and has already sold out the first printing. Jim Keith's best seller, BLACK HELICOPTERS, has sold over 85,000 copies. Which is to say that our works are not without interest. Jim's BLACK HELICOPTERS book was the Number One seller on the subject. I am new to Wikipedia and have made most of the newcommer mistakes. I hope you can forgive and correct. --Jerry E. Smith 22:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (per ERcheck), he's vaguely notable. Why not? Matt Yeager 01:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Autobiography.Edwardian 07:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foosher 03:19, 7 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Galt Jr[edit]

Minor write-in candidate for US president. Didn't even get on the ballot anywhere, and Google has a whopping 38 hits referencing him. I'd redirect to a political party page and smerge this content there, but don't you know it, he's an independent. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This article was created by an editor with no edits outside of this article. May be a vanity article. - Dalbury 21:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't see that he's notable. --W.marsh 21:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I can have an article too. Anybody can be a write-in candidate, after all. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... or merge with Howard Roark Sr. Edwardian 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks but your research sucks, "John galt jr" is a non de plume used for the past 21 years, there have been thousands upon thousands of articles about him but they have disappeared because some jerks I have never heard of say they never heard of him. His Current Blog / page is at webstation19.itgo.com/jonpol.htm There are 3000 references currently on Google but none on the useless fake Encyclopedia known as Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 by Seabhcan. --GraemeL (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Leat[edit]

Does not conform to WP:MUSIC, cannot find reference on name/songs on both google and allmusic.com. Probably vanity. L3TUC3 10:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted L3TUC3 11:34, 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 redirect to North Lawndale, Chicago - it's already been merged. - ulayiti (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

K-Town, Chicago[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Usefull entry --Pypex 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Cynicism addict 00:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless you want to tell us WHY it's notable. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Howard, it's up to those of us who want stuff deleted to explain why. "Delete" is not the default option. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Err, I actually meant the remarks towards the article creator, not the nominator. When I cast my vote, the article was basically "K-Town is a bunch of streets in Chicago starting with the letter K," making no assertion of notability, or whether that term was used widely beyond that area, or even what significance the term has. To me, that's almost A1 material. My attitude towards AFD has always been to consider the merits of the article as it is written. If the article were to be improved (and it has), I'm more than willing to change my vote, which I'm doing now. Keep after rewrite. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming your addressing me, I didn't say it was notable, I said it was usefully. But then "I haven't heard of it" is not really a good test of notability.--Pypex 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See this entry in "The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago © 2005 Chicago Historical Society." It's a real name, there's a vaguely interesting historical explanation—it is a fragment of an unfinished systematic street naming plan—and it is not the case (as I unjustly suspected) that there are A-Towns, B-Towns, C-Towns, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC) P. S. Or could merge and redirect somewhere suitable, but I'm not sure where. Too much detail for inclusion in Chicago, Illinois, not really enough to stand on its own as a whole article... do we have an article on Neighborhoods of Chicago? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge and Redirect to North Lawndale, Chicago. I've already performed the "merge." Dpbsmith (talk).
  • Keep.
(Unsigned vote by User:Trever Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Dpbsmith. By the way, Comcat, could you please explain your nominations more so that we can understand the reason behind your nomination. Nn D does not provide us with much information to go off. Capitalistroadster 02:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. It's important enough for the Chicago Historical Society to include, it's important enough for us in some fashion. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete or merge, as above. Pintele Yid 04:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting article.--Nicodemus75 04:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a section of the North Lawndale article. That's how other neighborhoods in Chicago are handled, as sections within their respective community area articles. Excellent work. Tedernst 06:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in North Lawndale article, with redirect. Gazpacho 07:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with north Lawndale, Chicago. Neighborhoods are okay to include, but this article doesn't stand much chance of getting any bigger. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Merge into North Lawndale per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Dpbsmith - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. and please excuse my overt n00b-ism. There's a lot more that can be said about this area, actually, and once I get my feet under me here I'll be happy to work on it.--208.246.213.149 15:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)IAmGladys 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)(that was me...sorry)[reply]

  • Merge per Sjakkalle --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The information in this article has already been merged with North Lawndale, Chicago and expanded. So I think that all the votes for "merge," "redirect," and "merge and redirect" all amount to the same thing, i.e. replace the contents of this article with #REDIRECT [[North Lawndale, Chicago]] Dpbsmith (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and redirect to North Lawndale, Chicago. I'm all for keeping neighborhoods within cities... but neighborhoods within neighborhoods?Gateman1997 23:28, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

karanam[edit]

No hits on google for this as a caste name. If it is legit, should merge with caste Kghose 04:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Kghose 04:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google, searching for Khandayat and Karana has results, but Karanam seems to be a typo, or morphological variation of the caste name. should be merged per nom. jnothman talk 06:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I don't know about the veracity of the text, but my gut feeling is that this is a useful article. It should not be merged with caste, as it appears to be a specific subcaste. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing my vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the description in the article refers to Kayastha caste; Karanam is a surname in Andhra Pradesh (e.g. Karnam Malleswari) and not necessarily a caste name. As late as 1980, the officers who maintained village records and were native of a village were known as karanams. The institution of Karanam is at least around 500 years old. So, while the name definitely exists, it is not a caste name and definitely doesn't fit the content in the article. Seems like an evil hoax.--Gurubrahma 07:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per gurubrahma, but merge whatever can be salvaged into Kayastha. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 15:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good! Some people from south india who know about this :) Thanks for taking time to comment. I will try port the description into Kayastha under caste. Be bold and edit it:). Kghose 15:54, 8 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. --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 SPEEDY DELETE. — brighterorange (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylin Marton[edit]

Not Encyclopedic Fallsend 02:06, 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 List at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Physchim62 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King of music[edit]

This redirects to Michael Jackson. There is no consensus that he has ever been refered to as that and should be deleted. KrisW6 09:34, 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 as copyvio. Physchim62 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kollaboration[edit]

nn talent show, with a lot of POV language. Advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment quite pov, but many google results jnothman talk 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ignoring POV of article, it just barely passes the mark. The article obviously needs a complete rewrite though. --rob 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio - If somebody does a rewrite, put me down as keep. --rob 13:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • rewrite as above; I've heard of this through various videos making their way around the internet. We need to delete copyvios though, obviously. — brighterorange (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's an article for a contestant on this, David Elsewhere, who might not warrant his own article yet. Perhaps, the best way of making a rewrite, is to merge in data from David Elsewhere, and then redirect David Elsewhere to Kollaboration; unless/until there's enough info about both topics to warrant separate articles. --rob 14:32, 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 Keep (6/2). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Manetti[edit]

His biggest claim to fame seems to be that he's Frank Sinatra's step son and that Tom Selleck likes to come over to his house, but that wasn't verified, and I don't think it's worth checking since that's probably not notable enough in itself. Delete. Karmafist 19:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0542027/ - OK, he's probably famous for being famous as much as anything else, but he does at least appear to have some kind of movie career. Lots of articles on Wikipedia about people with far more tenuous claims to fame than this. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Just zis Guy. PJM 19:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable actor with supporting role in Magnum, P.I.. FCYTravis 20:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand, as per IMDB. Carioca 21:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly doubtful that nominator did any research at all. CalJW 23:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable actor with a lengthy list of credits including Magnum. The article is definitely terrible and needs a complete reworking, however. 23skidoo 23:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you remove the copyvio from tv.com[11], and the unverifiable prattle, all that's left is a date "23.07.1947" with zero context--let somebody start from scratch with original, coherent, verifiable text. At a minimum it should go to Cleanup or Wikipedia:CP for a good scrubbing. 24.17.48.241 04:42, 6 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 re-creation of previously deleted content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Schuker). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Schuker[edit]

There is really no need for this page. Lauren Schuker is not a well-known or particularly notworthy person outside of Harvard College, and she is not even listed under "notable editors" on The Crimson's page. 140.247.40.218 01:57, 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 No consensus = keep (2/1). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Porra[edit]

wp:music BeteNoir 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 22:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC). OK, does sound notable now BeteNoir 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--subject of the article is the bass player of Stratovarius (see Allmusic entry, currently on world tour) and has just released a solo album. Notable Finnish musician. Meelar (talk) 06:34, 5 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 FireFox 13:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of Democracies[edit]

Non-existent international organisation. It was mentioned once in a newspaper column. Unless it progresses any further, I think it's fairly non-notable. Slac speak up! 00:39, 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 MOVE Marskell 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of pissed off voters[edit]

This page is nothing but vandalism. Even if it is true, it cites no sources. pielover87 00:20, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leicohtica[edit]

Local band with one self-produced EP, fails to meet standards of notability per WP:MUSIC. Stormie 03:20, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lenton Red Sox[edit]

Apparently a league football team of strikingly handsome and talented youths. Does not seem notable and can't verify through google. JJay 16:19, 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 speedily deleted as a collection of external links. --Scïmïłar parley 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchist links[edit]

Wikipedia is not an Internet directory. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 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 Merge into single-party state. - Mailer Diablo 08:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-party states[edit]

Delete. Found this while looking at recent changes, and is listcruft. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:52, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LUSerNet[edit]

This is just spam for (badly written) peer-peer software. 9cds 13:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - 9cds 13:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VAIN, article created by the software author to promote it ... the majority of his edits seem to have been linking to this article from everywhere conceivable 212.56.101.177 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:48, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massclusivity[edit]

Neologism - under 600 Google hits and only 157 unique hits. Purported buzzword has no evidence of use beyond a few PR and ad agencies trying to sound trendy. FCYTravis 20:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. After further reading, I agree that this is a neologism used exclusively by readers of trendwatching.com. Gazpacho 20:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:48, 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 speedy delete by Geogre. Kirill Lokshin 05:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masterofpirates[edit]

Vanity page for Internet handle. Deco 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious NN vanity. *drew 04:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no claim of notability, surely a candidate for A7 jnothman talk 06:23, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn since the nominator was momentarily confused by some vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa (disambiguation)[edit]

Not sure if this is the procedure to handle it, but this is a disambiguation page with only one entry. No reason for the page. --Bletch 13:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN - I'm an idiot; the reason that there was only one entry is because of vandalism. --Bletch 13:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MetalReviews.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, so far as I can tell. Alexa rank 731,291 and no evidence of media attention (no google news hits). Their forum gives me a "Service Temporarily Unavailable" so I can't assess its size. —Cryptic (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete as non-notable web. Quite a few linking in according to Google: [12], so I'm open to persuasion, although a lot of those are low on authority (blogs, forums etc.). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:34, 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 The result of this debate was Speedy delete. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Discount Brokers[edit]

Not encyclopedic, opinionated and it's not really about the title. 64.166.166.40 01:25, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidly Obese Angel[edit]

Another editor had already questioned its notability. 125 Google hits; not found at allmusic. Delete. Joel7687 13:14, 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 No consensus = keep (6/4).May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr._Butch[edit]

Non-notable as a musician, coverage in a non-notable fanzine, limited google hits with lots of mirroring. Only real claim to fame seems to be his guitar work and occasional performances and being kicked out of Kenmore Square --badlydrawnjeff 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is no basis for this article to be deleted per the Deletion Guidelines. Mr. Butch IS a notable figure in the recent (past 20 years or so) history of Boston, with a fairly substantial cult following. --RoachMcKrackin 19:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It: Yes, he isn't found on the internet much because he doesn't use the internet himself. Most people I've mentioned him to in Boston know who he is. It sounds like you're basically saying that people who are "haves" rather than "have nots" and are able to slap their names up all over the internet and be promoted in mainstream ways are somehow better people or more notable.
  • I particularly like the idea of having a person who's chronically homeless and likely has persistent mental illness being listed for reasons other than having committed a crime or been the victim of one, which are the only reasons the mainstream hears about most people in his demographic. He's known for his personality and his artistry, which I think are positive things and should be encouraged.Triangular 21:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've lived in Boston for any significant period of time in the last 15 years, you probably know who he is.
  • yeah, definitely leave it in. he's a phenom, a living urban legend.
  • Leave it. He's one of those people that everyone in Boston seems to know, even if they don't realize it. Bethling 22:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is he? I've spent significant time in Boston, and I only heard of him last Friday. --badlydrawnjeff 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So just because you've never heard of him until recently doesn't mean he's a significant figure in Boston? --RoachMcKrackin 19:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that's the thing: He's not all that significant. "Mr. Butch" + boston gets under 450 google hits, many of which are mirrors. If he was truly significant, he'd be better known and have more notability. I know that you've really only signed up recently, but notability is a reason to have an article here. His musical "career" doesn't show notability, and the idea that many people know him isn't all that established anyways. I'm one to vote to keep most things, but this is such an extreme case that I don't think a desire to highlight a positive homeless person trumps notability precedent. At this point, anyways, the keeps appear to have it to at least leave the article as a no consensus, but that doesn't change what he really is. Or let me put it another way - I've personally been featured in more notable media, performed for more audiences, and have more in the way of "notability" than this little known man in Boston. I'm certainly not worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and if you and I both can rattle off Bostonians who are better known than Mr. Butch who don't have articles, that should probably say something. --badlydrawnjeff 20:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • He's not just a homeless person. I don't think that's where most of the defenders of this article are coming from. He's a Kenmore/Allston cultural figure, and the Google hits he -does- get reflect this. Here's a link to a 2002 documentary about him that was included in the Boston Underground Film festival: http://www.postwarmedia.nl/els/qt/clips_butch.html. Here's an article from Boston University's grad school journal, The Comment: http://www.bu.edu/com/comment/archive/2004/kenmoreking.htm. The photographer David Henry includes an 80s picture of him in his online gallery. I know that Google hits form part of the Wikipedia guidelines for significance, but I feel that they are often misleading, particular with underground or subculture phenomenae that is too new to enter the history books, but too old to have been adequately documented on the Internet. Kenmore Square itself is another example. There's not a lot on the net about K.S. in the 70s - early 90s period, but it was a very significant underground cultural center, where bands like The Replacements and The Zulus played in the "Rat" for small, devoted audiences. Anyone who was into that scene knows that Mr. Butch was a notable figure of that period of K.S. whether or not it's much been documented on the Internet. Tyler c gore 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Bethling, but please let's see if greater verification can be established. Actually let's be honest, I just want to believe that this homeless guy is genuinely remembered by lots of folks. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - defines non-notable local phenomenon. Remember the ideal standard... "in 100 years, will anyone remember who this guy is?" FCYTravis 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, every neighborhood has a guy like this. -- Kjkolb 00:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a pretty good, informative article, of some interest to more than just a small niche community, and the guy's clearly much more noteworthy than just your typical eccentric homeless person. But some more solid evidence may need to be provided of his significance if the article's to stay; it's also troubling that not a single article links to Mr. Butch, not even Kenmore Square. The only way anyone could ever find this page is through the one category it's in (or through the new VfD pages and category that link to it). That's not a good sign. -Silence 00:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 09:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, but it needs verification by established Bostonian Wikipedians. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It: Mr. Butch is a veritable Boston cultural figure. He has been a fixture in Kenmore Square and Allston since the mid-1980s, and has been particularly well-known to several generations of Boston University students. I went to B.U. in the late 1980s, and remember him well, and have seen articles written about him by more recent generations of Boston students. Although perhaps not quite as flamboyant, he is something like a modern-day Emperor Joshua Norton in Boston culture -- a street figure who has gained a high-degree of cultural significance in local circles. Look, there are articles on Wikipedia on a number of transitory internet trends (e.g. Flying Spaghetti Monster) that will likely have little significance in a few years. Mr. Butch has been a well-known figure in Boston for twenty years. This is not a frivolous entry. People come to Wikipedia for exactly this kind of local cultural information that can not be found elsewhere. Please keep this. In fact, I would like to add more to the article when I get a chance -- I have some pictures of Mr. Butch in the 1980s, somewhere. --Tyler_c_gore 13:56, 5 November 2005 (DST)

(PS -- I'm new to this, so forgive if I've added to this discussion incorrectly -- I used the edit this page box, but somehow I think that was probably the wrong way to do it.)

*Keep it!: I know Butch very well. In fact, I was hanging with him and a neighbor last evening, watching the Patriots / Colts game. He is alive and well and, I'm certain, bemused by all of this attention. He himself would probably be indifferent to whether or not he remains on Wikipedia. But the rest of us in Allston (I have asked people) all want this to remain here. He's part of our collective history far more than any possible reference to pop-fads or one-hit-wonder bands, of which there are numerous at this site. To correct the record: Butch has been well-known around here since the late 1970's. He is a local icon. Further: the statements that there are no links to Mister Butch are incorrect. He has even had a number of short movies made about him, is mentioned in Boston University's Alumni magazine (Bostonia), and is made mention of in many songs and CDs. Wikipedia would be doing us all a vast disservice by failing to retain some mention of him. -- Allstonian 09:42, 8 November 2005


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 05:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Idrees Ahmad[edit]

Not very notable, 145 Google hits Modular. (Talk.) 14:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw the website (you beat me to nominating). Research organizations usually have a lot of people doing that work. Unless someone can tell why specifically he is worthy of an article, I'd have to say delete. - Mgm|(talk) 14:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed: No assertion of notability. BrianSmithson 14:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:29, 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 to redirect to the appropriate section under IUPAC nomenclature.  Denelson83  20:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Substituted Benzene Isomers[edit]

Just noticed that there is a section under IUPAC nomenclature that defines the same topic. rmosler 06:36, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevan Name[edit]

Non Notable and Non Encyclopedic Sebastian Kessel Talk 05:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why should it be deleted, while other name articles persist? Atacama 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the nomination for the reasons. You're welcome to vote against. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or copy to wiktionary if notable enough. Bjelleklang - talk 23:19, 7 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Manzoni[edit]

Apparently non-notably junior tennis player, reads as vanity.

  • Fails WP:BIO - no significant Google presence, has not played in adult professional tournaments. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even verify what the article does claim. (Listed on web as losing in round of 128 in a minor youth tournament.) Also, created along with other ridiculous articles Rupert Baynes Williams, Galore Junior Kart Championship and The Principality of Galore. JPD (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, NN. BrianSmithson 14:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Tom Harrison (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified, non-notable. *drew 17:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the claim about being a tennis player appears true—just about the only thing that is, unfortunately. Claim to be ruler of a "country" false. Not enough verifiably true /significant tuff here for a page of its own. encephalon 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by my learned colleagues above. --Roisterer 03:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont deleteHe 'claims'to be a ruler of a country true. although playing in major junior tennis tournaments seems false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.19.124 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Vanity, with unverifable claims to importance. --Cnwb 07:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cnwb. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:06, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Keep the article. See below =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NITIE[edit]

It seems likely to be a copyvio, and even if it's not, it's very poorly written and unwikified. It also may be a vanity/advertisement article. Superm401 | Talk 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete copyvio from [13] --Anetode 08:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article was reverted to a revision lacking the copyrighted material, speedy delete vote withdrawn.--Anetode 09:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a future note, you can't speedy copyvios unless they're copied form a commercial content provider. Therefore, even if the version I saw was the only version, it still wouldn't be a speedy. Futhermore, the article's still clear advertising. Will you change the vote to regular Delete? Superm401 | Talk 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am withdrawing my vote and abstaining from this discussion altogether. After negligently posting a speedy delete tag on the article, I read through the copyvio policy and discovered just what you've mentioned. I'll try to be more cautious and prudent in the future. --Anetode 09:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without the possible copyvio material, there is practically nothing here. Saberwyn 12:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio but Keep if article is recreated at some later stage. NITIE is reputed; it's one of the most prestigious organisations in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though most of the article seems to be lifted out of the institutes webpage. NITIE is one of the most prestigious institutes in India. This article may have been created by one of its students without knowing about the copyright vio regulations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.39.166 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 October 2005
  • Keep. The anonymous posters are right. This is a very professional institute supported by the government of India, it's not some local college. Anetode removed the copyvio material. Put a clean-up tag on it, though. -- Corvus 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!

I am an alumnus of NITIE and presently working as a Management Consultant with a leading Consulting firm in India.

NITIE is a premier institute in India and offers admission only to creme` de la creme` of the country for its post graduate programs.

The flagship courses at the institute include the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Management (PGDIM), the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering (PGDIE) and the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Safety and Environment Management (PGDISEM).

The institute is focused on developing techno managers by grooming the elite engineers to take up management responsibilities. The institute takes in top performing students at the Common Admission Test (CAT) for the PGDIM program and the GATE for the PGDIE program.

The illustrious alumni of the institute bear the testimony to the quality of the students and the programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.149.212.242 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 October 2005

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NITIE"


This article is very poorly written in zilch quality english.It is lifted straight out of the institute's web page

Relisting. Let's get more votes before closing. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this as copyvio. If someone wants to write a proper article or even stub about it, I would vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up the article and toned donw POV. I vote Strong Keep. It is definitely notable enough to merit an encyclo entry. Prashanthns

17:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep as per above; very notable institute. --Gurubrahma 07:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the copyvio history and restored Prashanthns's version. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:32, 6 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonebrity[edit]

NN dictdef, D. ComCat 00:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/send to Wiktionary. Clearly just a dictionary definition, with no hope of becoming a true article. -Willmcw 00:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. I don't think Wiktionary would be very happy with us if we dumped it on their doorstep, but you never know. ComCat, I'm pleased that you've expended the effort to write an extra word in your nomination, by the way. Keep it up, mate! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This does not belong in Wikipedia as it is a neologism not currently capable of much expansion. However, Wiktionary may be interested in it as it has been cited in the Guardian see [14]. On the other hand, they may not as it only gets 58 Google results see [15] including a reference on pseudodictionary. In short, transwiki to Wiktionary if they are interested, delete if they are not. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef (as a neologism I don't think it has wide enough curreency to transwiki, but I could be wrong). Full marks to the writer for coininig such a useful word, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google gives 78, which is still a neologism to my mind. Alternatively, mergeep, redete or possibly tranpand. Marskell 10:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NN K.
  • Delete as neologism. Ifnord 18:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and dic def.Gateman1997 23:25, 7 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 05:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not even au[edit]

Delete as unverifiable and non-notable. A phrase "formally instituted" by a television show. Marskell 10:51, 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 No consensus=keep (2/4). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novus Consulting[edit]

Reads like an ad or a company prospectus. Has considerable content admittedly from the comapny website. No clear indication of notability or importance. Delete DES (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Might be willing to reconsider if notability were established, but simply "being a business" is not notable. --Alan Au 20:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BURN ALL ADVERTS. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thank you for your feedback. I have to admit being new to the addition of pages, but I am at loss to see where you are backing your claims up that this is an advert or overtly resorting to propaganda. Reading the 'What Wikipedia is not' page leads me to believe, in section 1.4, that an article written 'in an objective and unbiased style' on a company that is third party verifiable is allowed. If there are parts of the article that lead to it being biased, I will clear them up, as long as they are pointed out. I do admit to using the company's website as well, though I do not think I made claims using that information that are biased. Lastly, though 'being a business' is not notable, being a business that clearly impacts the community around it is notable. Because of their presence in municipal and provincial government (as well as working with the RCMP in the area), they have a clear hand in the community around Victoria, British Columbia. And, while you may toss this out of hand, I am not an employee of Novus, I am the son of a police officer whose department's network security relies on Novus. Pfizerman 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the buisness is significant to the community, and therefore notable, the article should say so, and say why. The tone of the current article feels very much, to me, like a corproate flier. That often gets negative reactions here. You might take a look at WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. DES (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some quick changes, if you could leave comments here about them, I'd be appreciative. Pfizerman 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By looking at the list of clients it is clear this company plays an important role in Canada. However, there are three links to the company website, which make it sound like an advertisement. Perhaps remove the links to the website outside of the external links, and also the section about the logo. Jtrost 23:33, 4 November, 2005 (UTC)
  • Further changes were helpfully made by DES. I would, however, appreciate further suggestions to bring this article up to wikipedia standards. Pfizerman 23:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote). I'm not sure it meets WP:CORP, but at the same time, to me it doesn't look anything like a flier or anything like that. I think a lot of time and effort actually went into this page, and we should spend the same time and effort researching it before we take it away. I think the recent edits have helped a lot. Jacqui ★ 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a further addendum, on the WP:CORP issue, one of the inclusions into wiki's qualifications is "The company holds more than a 20% share in the market area that it competes in." I did some research, and since they handle, or help handle, the majority of CRD networks, I think that qualifies them as having more than a 20% of the share in the area they compete in for CRD networks. If this is too flimsy an inclusion, please let me know. Pfizerman 00:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly advertising and doesn't add any useful information to Wikipedia. Catamorphism 00:40, 5 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 05:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleics[edit]

Advertising - doesn't meet WP:CORP

I had a look at the WP:CORP guidelines and it says that it is not against it if a company holds more than a 20% share of its market. Nucleics falls into this category.

    • Comment I'll be happy to be proved wrong on this and will withdraw nom on foot of verification of above. Dlyons493 Talk 12:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. *drew 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear ad per nom jnothman talk 06:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to vote Keep. However, I cannot find many third party sources to verify their importance as per WP:CORP. The only one that I could find was on the University of Technology, Sydney website see [16]. No reports could be found in the Australian media for example If it could be proved that they had at least a 20% market share, I would vote Keep but I am abstaining for now. Capitalistroadster 08:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their primary activity is offering a DNA sequencing facility - I would guess that most universities in Australia have an equivalent facility.--nixie 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom and Peta -- Ian ≡ talk 02:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ill Dilettante 05:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) The 20% figure is difficult to prove for private companies like Nucleics working in niche areas. Nucleics primary activity is not offering a DNA sequencing service, but software and reagents for improving DNA sequencing (as per the article). Nucleics has also been listed in Science as a supplier of DNA sequencing software Advances In : Genomics – Fresh Steps in Sequencing.[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. Ral315 (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley rugby club[edit]

Not Notable and no real content. Fallsend 16:44, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox Foundation[edit]

NN Company NN webhosting company / poets coven / cum vanity press. Involved in apparent hoax promotion of poetry book as authoritative text in game theory, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brent_Henry_Waddington. Essentially advertisement/vanity for a NN company. Pete.Hurd 14:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no real evidence of notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this organization does not meet guidelines of WP:CORP or of WP:WEB. Furthermore, there is evidence of sustained bad faith posting and attempted hoaxing on wikipedia by the Vice President of this company. see the Brent Henry Waddington discussion linked by Pete Hurd above. Bwithh 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Poets coven"? What is that supposed to mean Pete? I think 4,000 poets qualifies for notability. We should be discussing notability, not playing a blame game about an alleged hoax (and correct me if I'm wrong, the AfD for the "hoax" appears to be focused more on notability, not verifiability at this stage). FN 23:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're wrong. If you actually read the discussion, the Afd for Brent Henry Waddington is still focused on verification, as people think that its all a hoax (note how you haven't attracted ANY keep votes apart from those by yourself and your sockpuppets. if a book does exist, it sure ain't about game theory. it'll probably be a print out of 300 of your poems or whatever. The consensus is that you are a hoaxer, but even if it wasnt a hoax, the book is non-notable. The Amazon hack wasn't convincing, sorry - how many times do we have to say this?. By the way, as you seem to fantasize about being in the financial industry, you should know that having a public history of engaging in hoaxes is not going to make recruiters love you. oh, and 4,000 members is not notable for a forum website Bwithh 04:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also- worth discussion: is this a "corporation" under which the WP:CORP inchoate policies apply, or do we have different guidance to work with for registered foundations? FN 23:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your poetry group's official name is "Paradox Inc." and it has been legally incorporated as an non-profit organization i.e. it is a non-profit corporation. See your own webpage here Bwithh 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note FN's connection with the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Henry Waddington. - Dalbury 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is part of the mess with the Brent Henry Waddington article. - Dalbury 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (Note: I am affiliated with the paradox foundation) It seems to me that this article should be discussed under it's own merits without relation to the Brent Henry Waddington page. Howeman
    • Comment. User:Alakon, who has been been heavily engaged in the discussion on Brent Henry Waddington, twice states there that he has a conection to Paradox, Inc., the publisher of Waddington's Trout. He linked the Paradox, Inc. listing as publisher of Trout in the Waddington article to this article. He has heavily edited this article, and uploaded the image of the logo used in this article. I suspect that User:Fn who has participated in this discussion is a sock puppet for User:Alakon. Some of us suspect that the Brent Henry Waddington article is a hoax, and the pattern of activity connected to this article could indicate that this article is a part of that hoax. - Dalbury 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have been with the Paradox Foundation for almost a year, and have proof of its existance dating back to at least October of 2003. So unless this is a very long hoax in the making, the Paradox Foundation was not created for the purpose of supporting a hoax. Just by looking at the sheer amount of material on Paradox Poetry and the other sites, it should be very clear that this is not part of a larger hoax, and should be analysed on it's own merit. Brendan 04:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Note: Brendan & Howeman are the same user (I got confused checking the history file to find Brendan's previous contributions) Pete.Hurd 06:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'm saying that it looks like the Wikipedia article for the Paradox Foundation was created to support the Brent Henry Waddington hoax. - Dalbury 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added a comment on possible sock puppetry in this dicussion to the talk page. - Dalbury 00:44, 6 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 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro marques[edit]

Between not being NPOV and seeming like another vanity page, I say Delete. But I do have to admit, this could be better if it was cleaned up.69.81.252.232 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 06:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; neither Pedro nor his blogs are notable enough to merit an encyclopedia entry. (The Urban GTA blog, for instance, doesn't seem to have had a single posting made to it between March and October.) Even if the article were cleaned up, he still just wouldn't be all that notable. Bearcat 22:39, 5 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 05:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phider[edit]

Cannot substantiate any of this; looks like a candidate for BJAODN. Doesn't fit any CSD criteria, though. jredmond 21:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable hoax. Eddie.willers 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am lucky enough to have a free subscription to the online OED through my college. It doesn't turn up any instance of "phider." Therefore, it's probably a hoax. Delete. Jacqui ★ 23:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Among other things, a "Secret Adventures of Alice" by Lewis Carroll? Um, no. --Aquillion 04:30, 5 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. Physchim62 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popstar Kids[edit]

Revise. This article states unfounded ideas and irrelevant contents causing others to be misinformed. This needs to be wikified and be revised immediately. User:Kevin nico

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 06:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AFD is not the forum for a request for revision. There are tags for this. No vote, though it seems this may be a notable production in the country in question. 23skidoo 14:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, establishes notability. Kappa 16:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and keep - Appears to be about a television talent-show thingy in the Philippines. FCYTravis 17:14, 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 redirect to Residential community. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proximal communities[edit]

I hereby withdraw this AfD nomination so that this page can become a redirect to Residential community. -- Malo 18:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At best this is a dicdef, at worst it is nothing more than nonsense. Honestly I don't think this deserves an article for itself. -- Malo 07:28, 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 Transwiki to wiktionary. Physchim62 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psogos[edit]

dicdef pfctdayelise 01:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - pfctdayelise 01:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki: I made a search of the web, but the information I found seem not to allow writing anything else beyond definition. As a dictdef, it makes perfectly sense. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:26, 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.  Denelson83  04:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

qxl.com[edit]

obvious advertisement ("click here to view our...")

  • Delete per nomination ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete copyvioesque advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio - this is a press release from the QXL website. Pilatus 02:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it's really a press release, those are generally intended to be copyright-free; otherwise, newspaper couldn't easily reprint them. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Press releases are generally intended to be copied widely for the purpose of writing news reports. That hardly qualifies as "copyright-free" or "public domain". --Carnildo 23:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adv. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong delete. It's not a press release, it's an info page, so it's a copyvio. (This should be on WP:CP, but leaving it on AfD or taking it there does not influence my decision.) --Wcquidditch | Talk 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Blatant advert. Prashanthns 16:24, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Reflections" (musical)[edit]

A musical production done by a small college theatrical group and, supposedly, widely panned does not appear notable to me. That this production caused the theatre group to eschew traditional musicals since its premiere is rather underwhelming when considered it opened in 2004 and does not make it any more notable. You can call me Al 21:10, 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 speedily deleted. --Stormie 03:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rerey[edit]

inappropriate for Wikipedia, short, personal stub. Master Jay 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Master Jay 03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. anything but more info! Cleduc 03:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riboperine[edit]

Looks like advertising. Riboperine is a trademark, a look at http://www.health-search.com/p-vitc.htm showed that Riboperine was marked with the "TM" superscript. It is not a chemical substance which can be found in chemistry textbooks. All the Google hits point to pages selling the product, I think the only product, which contains this component. Finally the link at the end of the article seems to suggest that this was made to advertise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comprehensive evidence cited above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising for a TM product, no verifiable scientific evidence to back up claim. ERcheck 02:05, 5 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. --Stormie 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo[edit]

useless article 141.161.109.49 01:44, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Webster[edit]

Topic is utterly non-notable. The comic in which this character is a hopelessly minor character does not even have an article itself, nor does "jobbers" +"richard webster" bring up any references on google, as far as i could find. Jdcooper 14:47, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert hanrahan[edit]

Advert/vanity. Neither he, nor any of the bands mentioned have an All Music Guide page. No particular evidence that he's notable. Flowerparty■ 01:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robislav Higinaksiya[edit]

At best, unverifiable, probably a hoax. It was created by an editor with a recent prolific history of vandalism Sorry, I confused editors here. - Dalbury 20:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This user User:82.43.142.95 has been arguing against deletion of Dr. Paul Bosworth, and may be a sock puppet for User:217.206.184.196 (contribs), who does have a history of vandalism. - Dalbury 20:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be verified. Few indeed are those who can boast zero Google hits! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dalbury 02:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this must be verifiable the link to the graveyard is real and contains an entry maybe worth leaving as an honorable mention 18:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (This unsigned edit is the first by 80.195.176.16 - Dalbury (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment. If you can see Robislav Higinaksiya in that list, you have better eyes than I do. - Dalbury (talk) 19:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Pouliot[edit]

Non-notable biographical entry; no relevant links found via Google Pgengler 19:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pgengler is right: Google turns up nothing to verify the article's claims. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nn-bio. PJM 19:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articel includes at least arguable claims of notability, so not an A7 speedy. But I see no real significane here. Delete. DES (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. WP:V. Interestingly, subject appears to change sex a number of times through article. encephalon 22:34, 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 keep. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Lin, Quebec[edit]

This article isn't even a stub

  • Delete per nomination. --Voyager 22:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand, and move to Saint-Lin-Laurentides, Quebec. Article does need to be expanded to include census data, as per requirements for US small towns, but copy/pasted government data aside it is contains about as much original information as Birmingham, Iowa, for example. GeeJo (t) (c) 23:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem, that's Saint-Lin—Laurentides, Quebec which also need an article, but since there are two components to the municipality, there can be up to 3 articles. Oh, and keep of course. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Earl, Saint-Lin-Laurentides isn't an electoral district. You know perfectly well that Canadian geographical names only have em-dashes in them when they're electoral districts, not when they're just plain old towns and cities. Bearcat 05:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Quebec federation of municipalities, or whatever they call it use an em-dash. [17] I am inclined to believe them. Meanwhile, I believe Stats can uses Saint-Lin - Laurentides, Quebec while I have also seen Saint-Lin--Laurentides, Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What the municipality itself (or the MRC) uses would be the only thing relevant. StatCan would be entirely irrelevant. --rob 05:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The municipality and the MRC both use a single hyphen on their own web pages. I'd take those as the main authorities in this regard. But there's always the option of contacting someone to clarify, if you'd like. Bearcat 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep towns.--Nicodemus75 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just found the data needed for the article at Statistics Canada. Don't currently have time to work it in myself though. GeeJo (t) (c) 23:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and move per above. Towns are inherently notable. 23skidoo 23:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep move and expand as peer GeeJo real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand.Gateman1997 01:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Wikipedia precedent has already pretty unequivocally confirmed that real identifiable communities always merit articles — and fer the love of deity, this particular community is the birthplace of a former Prime Minister of Canada (Wilfrid Laurier, for the record). I'd suggest speedy keep if that were remotely close to being an accepted policy. Bearcat 01:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, naturally. Fg2 04:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precident. But I really dislike how it's considered ok to make an article about a municipality without one single link (initially), making it difficult for somebody not familiar with the place to verify, or find more info. I first thought Saint-Lin-Laurentides is the official name of the municipality, which is the lowest order of government, with no furhter legal subdivisions. That's why I initially added a link to their web site. But, comments above, about 2 components, leave me confused as to what the article is about. --rob 05:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Not only is it a fairly large town, it has other claims to notability. Luigizanasi 07:08, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel bilibit[edit]

I could be wrong about this, but all hits I get are RPG games and blogs and the name sounds definitely non-Phillipine to be part of Phillipinian mythology. I smell a hoax, can someone verify this? - Mgm|(talk) 14:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per MGM. Nothing to see here, move along now... - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To quote from Samuel Bilibit's blog[18] "Samuel Bilibit, is a cursed man according to an old Visayan myth culled from an ancient parable. He was cursed to walk on the face of the earth till the end of time... This is a journal of his wanderings, his notes about life; his diaries... and, some will believe it...", but not me. - Dalbury 02:05, 5 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 MOVE Marskell 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Korn[edit]

  • Changed to move to Sandra Taylor as per 23skidoo from my original Delete nomination as this entry has now been improved and the original personal attack removed Bwithh 16:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This person has a long listing here:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0853140/ FRS 04:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. --Metropolitan90 05:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC) And move and redirect to Sandra Taylor per 23skidoo (below). --Metropolitan90 15:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten as the subject appears to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 08:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good work. Proto t c 11:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Sandra Taylor as she is probably better known by that name (and is listed as such by IMDb). 23skidoo 14:59, 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.  Denelson83  04:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scribalism[edit]

Looks like a load of old tosh to me. Made-up-word, as confessed by the author himself. --Oscarthecat 20:36, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Senpai Systems[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 06:28, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddapology[edit]

Unable to verify, Google returns zero hits [19]. Given page author's name, likely vanity. --Alan Au 06:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious parody of Scientology from Melbourne Australia.. Registration as a religion is currently pending. For Reference, See Church of Shaddapology Newsletter Website: http://members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/nlNov405.html

Google will begin to register this up in a few weeks. JD Nov 4, 2005.

  • See also Church of Shaddapology. Vanity. Delete abakharev 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - check the revision history of this project page. The above note originally admitted "This is a serious parody of Scientology from Melbourne Australia created by [Joe Dolce]." Vanity. --Bookandcoffee 06:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defense: I have maintained an extremely effective social protest weekly newsletter for THREE YEARS with a subscriber base of over 100,000 people internationally. I am well-known for taking creative and serious positions on controversial social issues. This is in no way a VANITY article, by your definition - as thousands of subscribers will attest, (if perhaps you would like me to have them email you directly in my next newsletter with support.) I suggest you give serious consideration to what is intended by my entry - looking at the implications - and the ways that it can be expanded as the Church of Shaddapology is granted status as a registered religion in the upcoming months. ~~Joe Dolce, Nov 4, 2005.

  • Delete. —Brim 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V with zero Google hits see [20]. However, the article on Joe Dolce is a mess. In case, you are wondering he meets WP:NMG through having a number 1 hit in countries such as Australia and the UK with Shaddup You Face in 1980-81. That song is worthy of an article both because it is one of Australia's biggest selling songs and its importance see [21]. If there is such a newsletter, it can be mentioned as part of either a rewritten article on Joe Dolce or on the song. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see precedent for this type of entry in: Church of the SubGenius. JD Nov 5, 2005

  • Delete. Maybe at wikicities, but not here I think. It's either vanity or a spoof, take your pick, and definitely does not compare with SubGenius for notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems similar to other parody religions. If we have entries for Church of the Subgenius, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and Invisible Pink Unicorn I can't really see any reason to delete this one. It should be put into a more wikified format, however.
  • Delete. Anyone can make a parody religion. To make one well-known enough for an encyclopedia article takes a lot more. --Carnildo 00:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and likely to remain so. -- WormRunner | Talk 02:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is great that apparently the man who wrote and recorded one of the highest selling songs in Australian history is writing for Wikipedia, he would be better served beefing up the Joe Dolce article (and perhaps adding a relevant image). --Roisterer 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Google hits, NN. Cynicism addict 04:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete..googled no hits. non notable.--Dakota ? e 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not significant. Not funny. Only one significant author, with no non-vanity edits to his name. (cf Joe Dolce which probably deserves to live but needs a big trim; Shaddap You Face dito; Difficult Women thinly disguised vanity for a friend; Lin Van Hek pure vanity on behalf of the same friend) Joe, I liked your song, but your pages, they aren't of the same high intellectual quality. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETION. - The FINAL Deletion. The MOTHER of All Deletions. " - Ok Folks, I bow to the consenus regarding deletion of Shaddapopogy and The Church of Shaddapology as unsuitable for Wikipedia. Delete away and I trust you get a warm feeling from it. (Although I do recall that Walt Disney had a 'cabinet' of ten advisors and would only go ahead on one of his ideas if NINE of them thought it was bad. I don't think Walt wouldn't have done too well on Wikipedia either. I noticed Shaddapology got one KEEP and even though it was unsigned, thank you O anonymous one! - if it was good enough for Mickey Mouse, it's good enough for me.) Some comments: ' Carnildo - 'anyone can make a parody religion?? Really?? Let those amongst you who have made a parody religion cast the first stone. Biting the newcomer. Go to the back of the Wikipedia class. The deepest comment of course was Ben Aveling's 'agrodolce' (sweet and sour) encouragement, ' I liked your song - but your pages aren't of the same high INTELLECTUAL quality. ' Think about that one. I will admit that 'Shaddap You Face' had more footnotes. Point taken. Say, if anyone is interested on the true meaning of BITING, look at how 'Shaddap You Face' has been trashed (and praised) by every type of critic on this planet over the past 25 years, read the Review Section of my website - I have put them all there to remind me (and all of us) to be humble.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/JDPress.html.

Finally, I think this whole 'vanity' issue on Wikipedia is defective, disempowering and destructive thinking, folks, sorry. In Australia, it is known as 'pulling your head in,' and 'the tall poppy syndrome' - one is not supposed to dress loudly or stand out too much. To Think too loudly. To think outside the box. Otherwise they get the chop. God forbid, you don't get a Google Hit. So one is not supposed to blow one's own trumpet? Would someone please tell that to Muhammed Ali (I am the GREATEST!), Jesus Christ ( I am the SON OF GOD). Salvadore Dali (' Before Dali, nothing!) PT Barnum (The Greatest Show on Earth) and pretty much every pioneering inventor and artist who has ever lived. . . The REVERSE is actually true about trumpet blowing. As Louis Armstrong once quipped, 'Who else is supposed to blow it?' I believe that the best one to write about one's own work - is always oneself. Joe Dolce, Nov 5, 2005 Melbourne.

Joe,

You're blowing your trumpet in a library.

My suggestion, and I'll help with this if anyone else thinks it's a good idea, is for the page Joe Dolce (the page about Joe Dolce that we all own) to be trimmed down and kept, and most of the lists of achievements and the stuff on the shadapology pages and so on to be moved to user:dolcej (the page about Joe Dolce that (I gather) Joe Dolce owns).

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable parody religion. No evidence of its supposed 100,000 adherents. --Cnwb 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we BJAODN a purportedly real-life pisstake? ～J.K. 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. And Ben, yes I like your suggestion above. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, as this all will be deleted soon anyway, I thought it wouldn't hurt to reveal the secret Cosmology of Shaddapogy which is now available, for a limited time only, on the Shaddapology page, for those who wish to continue your ascent on the Elevator of the Sacred Putana. Normally, you have to reach the 13th level before this is revealed but we're having a SPECIAL this week . . . . 'to be continued . . . ' L. Joe Dolce


I think we have consensus. And I think Joe has enough time to grab anything we wants to keep. Who wants the honours? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 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 Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shappens[edit]

delete OR and personal essay about neologism. --Trovatore 04:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above dr.alf 04:19, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shri 420 parties[edit]

Appears to be non-notable activity. Both "Shri 420 parties" and "Shri 420 party" net zero hits on google: [22] [23]. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 420 parties are a big tradition in the drug culture, but this particular one seems NN.Cynicism addict 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Shri 420" patires don't seem to exist. Nice try at a play on words, though. - AKeen 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn *drew 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We99 17:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyn Add. Marskell 23:33, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SmithsonStudios[edit]

Website vanity. If you hurry, you can be visitor #840. — brighterorange (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yeah, definite vanity of a non-notable site.
  • Delete. Non-notable, and he's using my surname without permission. Okay, just non-notable. BrianSmithson 14:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN vanity. *drew 17:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of insufficient noteworthiness to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS. encephalon 22:08, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sociobiological analysis of rape[edit]

See also Violence and evolutionary psychology (AfD discussion) and How to predict US vetoes (AfD discussion).

Another essay, apparently written by the same person. WP:NOT a soapbox. Wcquidditch | Talk 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 11:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. The 'analysis' spoken of is too thin to withstand close scrutiny. Eddie.willers 12:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research / soapbox. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. I have corrected the link to the identical article on everything2. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (but no vote) - there have been some genuine controversies over sociobiological theories of rape. This is not the article to cover that, but one may be appropriate. BD2412 T 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is one, sociobiological theories of rape. The author added a link to their new article (as an improper header link) directly above an existing link to the existing article, meaning it was a knowing POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, then - thanks for pointing out the existing article on the topic! BD2412 T 03:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. If someone wants to write a new, properly-sourced article on this topic, they can re-create it under this title without prejudice, but this isn't a useful start to such an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice essay, good references. Poor encyclopedia value Prashanthns 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, also almost certainly a knowing POV fork of Sociobiological theories of rape. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and as likely POV fork of existing article, per Antaeus Feldspar. The user may of course contribute to sociobiological theories of rape, but should be careful to understand and follow Wikipedia policies with regard to neutrality, verifiability, and citing sources, which means that it is not sufficient to cite sources to buttress a presentation of one's own opinion; opinions mentioned in an article must be the opinions of reliable, authoritative sources and citations must be provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Edwardian 07:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research. Graham/pianoman87 talk 04:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR Melchoir 02:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR on a soapbox. Jasmol 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essays violate NOR. HGB
  • Mirv has pointed out that this is a straight copy of this Everything2 article by its author. Uncle G 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; ironically, the link to the everything2 article has always been in this article, as Reference n. 5 with the misleading title "HerMan..."! Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 01:22, 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.  Denelson83  05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solar council[edit]

Can't find any evidence that this organisation exists. Article appears to be solely to promote website. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:11, 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 No consensus = Keep (4/3). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Niarchos III[edit]

Being the son of someone notable doesn't make you notable. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 20:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 19,400 Google hits and 33 Google News hits indicate that he is a notable celebrity. Punkmorten 21:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Ejrrjs | What? 22:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Precious little in there which would survive cleanup even if subject was genuinely notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence that it is vanity. CalJW 23:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently in the gossip pages because of an alleged relationship with Paris Hilton who seems to be going through a Greek phase at the moment. Celebrity heir. Added Cleanup. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 33 Google News hits is enough to me. Carioca 00:05, 5 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 deleted by me.--Scïmïłar parley 21:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STICKSEIZURE.TK[edit]

Patent nonsense, inappropriate for Wikipedia Master Jay 21:35, 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 Speedy Delete by Jni as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sudowudo[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 06:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sumpfgriff[edit]

Article appears to be about a non-notable band. Google search for a band using this name or Sånðhjef, a redirect to this page, returns only clone sites.[24] Delete unless sources provided to show this band exists and also meets the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 22:46, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Shao[edit]

This is a non notable person and no important information was given in the entry. Jtrost 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Jtrost 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Fg2 04:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Dglynch 07:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Check linked articles. TheDeadlyShoe 07:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Foosher 03:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is insufficient context to demonstrate notability of the subject or encyclopedic nature of the article. Is this fact? fiction? something from a MUD or MMORPG? No clue. MCB 04:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try a Google search such as Sun Shao romance three kingdoms. It yields over 17,000 hits. It's from a centuries-old Chinese novel. Fg2 07:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently Sun Shao is first mentioned in Romance of the Three Kingdoms in Chapter 86. See here. Melchoir 01:54, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Memory[edit]

I can't verify this game's existence at Google. Who publishes it? There is a self-help book by this name, though.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Arboreal Sages[edit]

Not WP:V... no evidence of usage by anyone other than the attibuted originator. Delete.--Isotope23 21:33, 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.

After discussion with two users regarding interpretation of this debate, I have decided to delete this article anyway. I apologize for any inconvenience.  Denelson83  07:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary[edit]

Unpublished book

  • According to the article, this is about an unpublished book. The article contains much that is speculative. I don't know whether it is amenable to cleanup, based on its apparent existence as a stalker mod (if indeed that would itself be notable), but as-is it looks to me like a deletion candidate. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unpublished series. Excellent nomination, by the way, JZGYK - that's how it should be done! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because the books are becoming a Stalker mod that means it is ground for a deletion? I can remove the information about the mod. I was under the assumption that Wiki-pedia was for all info about a particular subject or article, so I felt the need to include it. I never linked to the actual information about the mod, therefore there was no advertising.
    No, the fact that they are a stalker mod might (if the mod were notable) be grounds to keep; otherwise it is a shoo-in for deletion as unpublished fiction. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are pages dedicated to image boards and unreleased video games as well. What exactly is wrong about a book thats currently being written? There is a page listed for Harry Potter book seven. That book isn't even finished being written, where as The Diary Series 1 (books 1-6) is. The Author is currently looking for a publisher. But Harry Potter Book 7 remains there. I could argue that it shouldn't have its own page and that it should be included on the main harry potter page until released since the book is unpublished.
  • Two wrongs don't make a right. Many of those other speculative articles are also put up for deletion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We felt Wiki-pedia would be a site to use (as most of the other pages) as a reference site for The Diary. Just as fans of image boards and unpublished Video games use it to find information on said topics. The Diary has a history, just like any image board on the net.
I do hope we can come to an agreement. The page is still a tad bit lacking in information as we make edits to it daily to get it up to speed. If its organization, please tell me. If its about the mod, I can remove it.~Seth Walker 24.53.55.94 14:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Harry Potter is very famous and the next book is pretty much certain to come out, and will be being talked about already. No disrespect but I very much doubt this book/series is in the same category; it can't even have fans if nothing has yet been published. This belongs on your own website. Flapdragon 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, fame and probability of release are the only criterion required to make an entry viable? If this is the case, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, I am curious what empirical scale you are using to mathematically calculate the probability of release for a series you haven't even read.-Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) , at 17:15, 2005 November 4
  • That's just it, no-one has read it. Something that that no-one has heard of and has yet to see the light of day is, on the face of it, unlikely to be notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Flapdragon 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is the definition of "unpublished" and hence the definition of "published" that is considered acceptable on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.83.250 (talk • contribs) , at 17:28, 2005 November 4
  • Presumably this is a general, hypothetical question unrelated to the matter in hand, which is an article about "an unpublished series of novels". Flapdragon 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is being discussed for deletion under the term "unpublished book". What defines whether any material is considered published or otherwise? Does it have to be in print? If not then what about Ebooks? Or any form of electronic basis that any member of a viewing public can have free access to (i.e. the internet) providing they know the URL of the material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.83.250 (talk • contribs) , at 18:21, 2005 November 4
  • Just because Flapdragon hasn't read something does not mean that no-one has. And your comment about wikipedia not being a crystal ball is irrelevant seeing as the series of works has already been released on multiple fronts including the page linked in the very entry you seem to only be skim reading, as well as mainstream outlets like Fictionpress.-Chaossaber.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) , at 18:27, 2005 November 4
  • Delete unpublished and non-notable. The reason for the Harry Potter articles is that 1. they will almost certainly be published, and 2. that they are already notable even if they are not published yet. Fame and probablity are, in this case, the main issues. By the same line, if Mr. X comes here and writes an article about himself stating that “Mr. X will most probably win a Nobel prize”, his article will be deleted as well. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have no evidence to support whether or not Harry Potter 7 will in fact be published, just as you have no evidence to support your claim that this written work will not. And let's not shoot around the probability of the matter without a clear and concise numerical criterion with which to make an empirical judgment. -Chaossaber
  • Publication status is a red herring — the issues here are notability and verifiability. Harry Potter wins on both scores: it is widely reported on in independant media (i.e., other than on the Harry Potter & publisher websites) unlike The Diary; also unlike The Diary, should HP7 not reach publication, perhaps because J.K. Rowling has developed a bad case of being run over by a truck, it will have been perhaps the most overhyped (and thus most notable) unpublished novel in the history of the industry, whereas, should The Diary vanish in a puff of smoke from a burnt out harddrive, there may be dozens, perhaps scores, of disappointed fans. To compare this unpublished book with that unpublished book is rather on the order of comparing the cover band that's been playing at the local pub for the last three years to Rufus Wainright. --Kgf0 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; in fact, we have no numerical evaluation of probability of the next Harry Potter book being actually published; we however do not even have a numerical evaluation for the notability of a web site, a blog, a movie, etc. That's why we have this AfD page instead of a bot removing articles. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a numerical system you cannot say something is more or less than something else. Simple as that really. -Chaossaber
This article is on a work which cannot be verified by reference to independent reputable publications—indeed, it has itself not been published. It is therefore not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Links to personal websites do not satisfy the verifiability and reliable sources requirements for the encyclopedia. It's wonderful to note the enthusiasm of our new editors Chaossaber, Seth Walker and User:84.9.83.250; I feel sorry that I cannot support their current effort, but hope that they'll stay to write or edit good and informative articles on Wikipedia. Regards encephalon 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per encephalon, who's opinion I concur with 100%.--Isotope23 21:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per encephalon, with whom I agree entirely. The only significant non-wiki source I could find for attempted verification was this forum which includes a link to The Diary. --Kgf0 23:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unpublished, un-notable, possible promo.--Dakota ? e 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So the only reason out of that list of 4 "checks" that must pass for it to stay is its veriability? But isn't the fact that it has a reliable source, and numerous other sources that, if read, would prove the information on our entry is reliable?

    "Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore be specific, avoid weasel words, and provide references, linking to the source if it's online, and giving a brief citation in brackets after the sentence if it isn't."

    We've pointed to numerous sources, all that contian this work. Including an online site that might actually be in the process of publishing it. These aren't personal websites, but more along the lines of Wikipedia that it has a porfessional approach to it. Proof that this is the material of the series has been presented by numerous people who are indeed fans of the series, and have been following it since its release in October of 2003.

    The point being that the Diary is known to a group of people, just like fans of a videogame or web comic. This begs me to ask how an Image Board like 2chan (japanese image board) has a huge section dedicated to it? Maybe I'm missing a small point? ~Seth 24.53.55.94 00:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment.
Published on 3-7-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Realisation (First part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Published on 3-17-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Retaliation (Second part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster
linked directly here
Published on 5-27-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Revenge (Third part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Publsihed on 10-03-2003 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Religion (Fourth part) Copyright 2003 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Published on 01-24-2004 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Renegade (Fifth part) Copyright 2004 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
Published on 06-05-2004 on Fictionpress.com Diary: Retribution (Sixth part) Copyright 2004 Bodster (FictionPress ID:332874). All rights reserved. Distribution of any kind is prohibited without the written consent of Bodster.
linked directly here
  • keep. Guys if you think the diary doesn't have any fans then your sadly mistaken, how the hell you think Me(NCB) Seth and Choas got into the book? If you check fictionpress theirs a huge number of fans that read the books. You be making a mistake if you deleted it. - NCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.12.187 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2005 November 5
  • Comment.-I can confirm that I am a gigantic Diary-holic. I live, eat, breathe, sleep, and dream The Diary. I tell everyone about The Diary, and every time I do, they become fans of it aswell. It already has a large following, and given the fact that it continues to grow as more fans pass it on by word of mouth, it has the makings of a Cult Classic (no pun intended, of course). Besides, you know who else didn't want to make literature readily accessable to the public? HITLER.~Bloodcider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.161.30 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2005 November 5
  • Just because he mentioned Hitler doesn't mean this discussion will turn to that. That also means he doesn't speak for the rest of the fans. You seem to urge for a speedy closure to something that you probably haven't even given the chance to read. The sources are there, and we've proved the one law (Verafibility)that you've thrown against us to be falsely accused. Bloodcider's comment may have this closed, but by all means not throw this topic (not discussion) into the deleted category. We proved the sources, and nothing has been said. In all honesty all I see are people wanting this deleted. No reason what so ever, especially because I failed to see a written rule that CLEARLY states we cannot have an unpublished source. ~Seth Walker Drew 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthur more, I have yet to see someone actually check the FictionPress sources to verify our reasoning. We have so many naysayers here jumping at us, but when one person trying to back this up makes a small misguided comment its an automatic loss to the argument. Bloodcider's entery into this argument in not from one of the 3 main pro debatees and should be discredited appropriately. ~Seth Drew 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Guy and suggest speedy as well. A comparison with Hitler is a personal attack, and the discussion is clearly degenerating. Beside, Godwin's law really applies here: “once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress”. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be so, but I fail to see where the argument is degenerating. Once we posted viable sources to clear the one law that might of held this article back we never got a trrue response. This discussion just became a "Delete this, Delete This" post. We haven't seen any response from people wishing this to be deleted to give any reasons as to why the ARTICLE ITSELF should be deleted.

    Instead we have people finding other ways to delete the topic, other than trying to finish the origional debate itself. I've brought the topic back to the discussion at hand. If anything those in wishing to delete this article are contributing to Godwin's law, by staying on the subject I clearly moved away from. ~Seth Drew 16:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order for a book to have an article, it must be notable. I did go to FictionPress and can confirm that the book is there, but vanity/print on demand/free web publishing does not count as for assessing the notabilty of a book. Sell 10000 copies and I will personally buy the book and write an article about it here. This is really a numeric value as someone above suggested. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep So there is an exact defenition of Notable on Wikipedia when it comes to books and if they can have an article? I didn't see anything on the article having to be that notable. I did read that Wikipedia does acknowledge that Fictionpress exists. If that is so, then Fictionpress IS considered a verifiable source, correct? So then it comes down to, is Fictionpress a verifiable source? This question has be preposed numerous times, and every time it is ignored. Drew 16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi all. Just refactored the page for readability. New editors may wish to read this page to learn about using colons (:) to indent their comments; using * places a bullet in front of the comment. If you'd like to ask for an action to be performed on this article, write "delete" or "merge" or "keep" or some other choice in your post, usually at the beginning. See WP:GAFD for further details—that's actually a very good document to read if you're new to the article deletion process on Wikipedia. Finally, please sign your comments by placing ~~~~ at the end. See this page for details. I will respond later today to questions raised above about the article & WP policy. In the mean time, play nice everybody! :) Kind regards encephalon 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seeing as myself as well as others have already referenced and gone to its availability on the reputable site Fictionpress (that even has Quiki page as well I might add), the fans have spoken out (some more intensely than others) showing that there is a fan base and it is in fact notable. And the idea of the 10,000 sold idea is negated seeing as unpublished works like Harry Potter Book 7 have pages with only speculation. Seeing as the Harry Potter 7 has not even been written yet (per the authors admission) 10,000 copies is impossible. Furthermore, unless this is a standard being taken by Wikipedia as a whole it's merely dumb to suggest it. The data contained within this page is not speculative and is from an already released source.

    And while it hasn't been published and brought into print, one could make the argument that seeing as it is displayed on fictionpress it is in fact published on the net. -Chaossaber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.128.62 (talk • contribs) , at 03:34, 2005 November 6

  • Comment. Amen to that - NCB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.12.187 (talk • contribs) , at 11:56, 2005 November 6
  • Comment. Ok, here's the comment I promised. I'm sorry I couldn't get around to it sooner, been doing stuff around the wiki. As I've said above, when writing an article for an encyclopedia, one has to have good sources on the subject one is writing about (in this case, a work called The Diary). Most encyclopedias have very high standards for for "inclusion": the subject must be noteworthy enough that it is a recognized field of study, or at least has several scholarly or otherwise good quality works devoted to it. Wikipedia is a very inclusive encyclopedia, comparatively. Where the Britannica might only accept subjects with at least several high quality books, monographs, these, journal articles etc devoted to it, Wikipedia accepts even subjects whose only basis is, say, a newspaper article (this does not mean the subject will automatically get its own page, but it can find a place somewhere in it). Do note that although Wikipedia is very liberal in this way, it is nevertheless an encyclopedia and has rules for sourcing/referencing that must be followed.

    What are these rules? The official documents WP:V and WP:RS provides the basic ones. Multiple independent sources attesting to the claims made in the article are strongly urged, although sometimes a single independent, very reputable or high quality source for a claim is quite sufficient.

    For an article on a book, these sources could be many things. For example, a thesis written on a book is a good source for an article written on that book. A book review in The New York Times is a good source. Critiques of the book in scholarly journals are a good source. A book written on the book is an excellent source. A magazine article about the book is an acceptable source (for Wikipedia), etc. Of course, the book itself is one source, the primary, but one generally cannot write a good encyclopedia article on the book if it itself is the only thing available—certainly not on Wikipedia, whose contributors are anonymous editors who cannot write original analysis and let it stand on their names. When writing a NPOV article, you'd have to write a balanced work, and if the book is so un-noteworthy that no one has ever critiqued or written anything on it in a thesis or book or magazine/newspaper article, that suggests the work is not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

    There are no works of any kind on The Diary. It's basically something written by a person ("Bodster"—himself or herself anonymous) and placed in parts on the net. There are no sources. To claim that the piece on the net is itself a sufficient source is incorrect: this is self-referential (I cannot write a story about my dog, place it on a website, and then claim that encyclopedias should have an article on my dog using the website as a source. We depend on reputable publishers who are able to fact-check and peer-review to denote noteworthiness for us: if for some reason my dog is very notable—the last of a breeed that has had a story written in National Geographic, for example, then yes, that's a perfectly acceptable source. But not a self-referential website I wrote myself). In writing about a book the book is always a primary source (even one only placed on the net), but it is by no means sufficient for an article. Otherwise, Wikipedia will simply be a directory of things and claims made on the net; it most certainly is not.

    For a good example of a proper article written on a book, see Oroonoko. Note the reference not just to the work itself, but to multiple sources on the work. Note the NPOV nature of the writing. Now, you might say that this is a bit unfair: that article is a feaured article written by one of Wikipedia's best editors, himself a literature professor/expert; shouldn't you be able to write a short stubby piece that might grow? Fair question. However, there must be a good solid reason for us to take the m:eventualist view, ie., why should we believe that 5 years from now or ten years from now The Diary will be a profoundly noteworthy subject, with multiple reviews, books, theses, or monographs written on it? Will The London Review of Books be saying something about it in a few years, in the way we have no doubt whatsoever they'll be saying on Ms Rowling's seventh? There is absolutely no reason to believe that, and we have no evidence for it. But perhaps. Perhaps one day The Diary will be famous and noted. But until then, until it can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS and WP:NOT and WP:NOR, I don't see a reason for us to how we can write an article on it. encephalon 15:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Negated by the fact that your staff allows 3 pages on Harry Potter Book 7 which hasn't even been written yet let alone published. Something can't be noteworthy until there's something there for that adjective to discuss. So... let's not pretend this has anything to do with how noteworthy it is. Furthermore, unlike Harry Potter Book 7, this book has already been released and made available to the Wiki staff via this argument. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2005 November 7
  • Keep You could find it on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiteMan (talk • contribs) , at 19:34, 2005 November 6
  • Delete Having looked at both sides, it is unlikely this book will be published in print. This article need not exist until it reaches that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.75.97 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 November 2005
  • Comment You can't just say it will never be printed. We've stated it will be, and as of now it is released online. Even the Author has said he is working on the publishing aspect of it. I noticed a majority of the deleted requests are just previous statments, most of which have been proved wrong. FIND where it says you need X books to be noted. FIND where it says Fictionpress is noted and see that we've proved a reliable source. I looked at the other sections on Wiki to get an article cleared and we've passed all the requirements. This whole argument we've been refered to pages to get this article cleared and there is nothing saying directly what we can and can't have, minus the help page (which, by looking at, gives us the green from what it says). I want to see those who marked this for deletion to get the EXACT excerpts on Wiki's rules, and link them to this argument, since me (and numerous others) haven't found any significant reason for this article not to go up. Even after searching the rules page. Drew 22:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call us when the publication is complete; until then, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Note in particular the section, "and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" which explains why several million rabid Harry Potter fans trump an online collaborative RPG novelization. --Kgf0 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Case in point. Harry Potter Seven and it's three wiki pages. It is not in print. So... do you have anything to argue that hasn't already been discounted? I mean because like you said, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so regardless of how many little rabid fans are interested in it, it still negates your argument. Furthermore, The Diary has been released so it's no longer in the same category as rabid fans speculating on a book that hasn't even begun to be written. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2005 November 8
  • Harry Potter is written by a now "well-established" author. This Diary story thing is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.86.14 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 2005 November 9
  • CommentThis line of thought can be used for Harry Potter 1-6, but is irrelevant for Book 7 as it has not been written yet. Well established or not, I was under the impression that Wikipedia was not a crystal ball. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2005 November 9
  • Comment'. If you did any real research you'd discover that the dorms are on the same network as the labs and this specific address is coming from a room. Nice try at character assassination though. Perhaps you need a crystal ball after all. Additionally, I'm glad you have any knowledge of my campus' policies, none of which concern posting on message boards or defending my friend's work from a pompous little someone like yourself. -Chaossaber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.206 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 2005 November 9
  • Comment. Nice try? Right! Just kidding. Take it easy. --A little pompous joker (how do you like my new signature?) 19:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. As a longtime user of wikipedia, I do beleive that your grounds for deletion of this article are rather, harsh.. For example "madness combat" a free downloadable game that HASN'T been published in any hard copy format hasn't sold any copies whatsoever yet it hasn't been suggested it should be deleted (url to madness is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madness_Combat)

    Also based on your criteria that the diary entry should be deleted, upon the same criteria should not also the runescape entry be deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuneScape)And yet another entry which should be deleted upon your criteria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Dead the urban dead game. 'Wait a cotton picking minute, these haven't been deleted, why? because they are popular of course.

    Now just a moment, how can you measure how popular it is? by statistics alone? I think not as no statistics for these online free community based games are readily available or corroborable by any mainstream News papers or the media, so How do you measure that they are worthy of wiki, if its because they have a web location then I present to you a download link : http://www.geocities.com/bodster002/diaryseries1.zip Thankyou for your time, and please... read the diary you may just like it as it is a free endeavour written by bodster and supported by his community and fans. -Termin8tor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termin8tor (talk • contribs) , at 19:54, 2005 November 9.

    This account was created at 19:28, 2005 November 9, and has two edits, both to this page. After the second edit, this comment was edited three times by 150.201.116.206 [25], whose contribs are almost entirely to this AFD, and always marked "-Chaossaber". I'm restoring the last version left by account User:Termin8tor. encephalon 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for new users. Hi again guys. I realize Wikipedia norms and conventions can take a little getting used to. Firstly, there seems to be a little trouble with signing comments. When you write on any Wikipedia page, you can sign your comment by placing four tildes at the end of your comment. Like so:~~~~. (To type a tilde, use the key just below the Esc key on most keyboards). If you have a Wikipedia account and you are logged in, typing four tildes in succession produces your Username signature. If you don't have an account or are not signed in, it will produce the IP address of the computer you are using. Always sign any post you make, whether or not you have an account.

    Secondly (and this goes for everyone here, not just new editors), feel free to express your opinions forthrightly; Wikipedians appreciate your thoughts and the open exchange of ideas. However, please always comment within the confines of our civility and no personal attacks policies. These policies are taken very seriously on Wikipedia: please honor them.

    Thirdly, do not alter other users' comments. This is almost always frowned upon. Comments by new users are sometimes lightly edited by experienced Wikipedians to make the page readable in accordance with WP commenting conventions or to mark unsigned comments. Outside of such actions, comments by individual users should virtually never be touched or altered.

    Fourthly, Wikipedia is written almost entirely through the voluntary effort of thousands of editors (like you and me). Editors are not employed. I do not have any "staff" on Wikipedia; neither does any other editor. Just thought I'd clarify that in reponse to a remark above. If you'd like assistance feel free to contact an experienced Wikipedian, or ask here or here. Very kind regards encephalon 21:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Alright, let me make sure you guys that want this deleted know you're basic English. I have had the word 'publish' in my vocabulary for years, and if you do not know how to use it, please, save the world, and do not use it. Here is the definition, according to my dictionary and www.dictionary.com.

Publish

1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.

2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.

Okay. Please look at the number one for a quick second, and read it carefully. Basically, it is saying that you publish means that people can see it, free or sold. Pretty basic right there. But, lets move to the number two.

The second number is the most important one. It informs you that publish means to bring whatever material to public attention, or basically, announce the material. What does public mean? Here:

Public

1. Of, concerning, or affecting the community or the people: the public good.

2. Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park.

Alright, this one is easier. We are all people, even if we are on the internet. Yes, you are in a world with people, everywhere. So, public also means it can be in the internet, as long as there are people.

So, you might be asking, what does this have to do with the Diary? I'll explain it to you. You guys were arguing that 'The Diary' is not a published book. Well, according to the definition of publish, as long as it has been made, and people could find it, it is published. And the Diary can be found in it's website, http://www.freewebs.com/the_diary/ , and fictionpress, http://www.fictionpress.com/~bodster . Is that enough proof, or do you guys still want to argue? KiteMan 02:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Feathers[edit]

fails wp:music, nothing but copyvio content BeteNoir 22:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 22:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Sorry, did not look at Talk page for copyright clearance. But still fails wp:music. Also inappropriate tone; needs total rewrite if indeed notable band. BeteNoir 03:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, there appears to be a possibly-notable band called The Feathers, but this isn't it. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC -- Ze miguel 18:14, 5 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 dealt with by copyvio. (Editors' discretion to move /temp back to original articlespace). - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight[edit]

Delete and replace with temp, as suggetsed below. PJM 20:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article's creator has now created an excellent temporary page. Keep the article but replace the content of the article with the content of The Fight/Temp, or delete-The-Fight-then-move-The-Fight/Temp-to-The-Fight. Aecis praatpaal 22:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (to expunge copyvio) and replace with temp, per Aecis's second suggestion. Chick Bowen 00:19, 5 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 THe result of this debate was Keep (12/0)May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest American[edit]

This article is not worthy of a professional encyclopedia for the following reasons:

1) by far, the single most important reason for deletion is that the "poll" was not done with a statistically acceptable method.

2) using a NPOV, entries such as (but not exhaustive) Martha Stewart, Barbara Bush, George H. W. Bush, Laura Bush, Ellen DeGeneres, Brett Favre, Phil McGraw, Condoleezza Rice, and Arnold Schwarzenegger shouldn't be in the top 1000 list, let alone the top 100.

3) using the #1 voted individual, Ronald Reagan, should alert anyone to the unscientific nature of the "poll"

J. Crocker

  • Keep Appears to be legit per external links, perhaps title could be appended with (2005)(TV) rmosler 06:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we keep other polls, even if we don't agree with them. Jacqui ★ 07:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real TV show that was mentioned by the BBC. Nominator's skepticism of results is not a reason to delete. Gazpacho 07:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only to demonstrate how ridiculous these votes are. Ronnie greater than Abraham Lincoln? Yeah, right. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The credibility of these polls depends on the credibility of the organisations conducting them. As it was conducted by AOL and the Discovery Channel it passes muster on that score. Capitalistroadster 09:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator appears to confuse his/her POV with NPOV. Kappa 16:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People are always trying to have these polls deleted - it's not working! Ben davison 18:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's sentimental, celebrity worshipping garbage, but unfortunately it's notable. However, I think it should be renamed to better indicate what it is. -- Kjkolb 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep decent article that reports, in a reasonably neutral way, a depressing, stupid, poorly conceived, badly executed, unscientific, meaningless popularity contest. The "Comments and criticisms" section is not bad, the external links a bit weak as source citations but OK. Title is bad, should be moved to something like The Greatest American (Poll). Hey, where's Willard Gibbs? Barbara McClintock? Richard Feynman? Oh, well... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: they had to make way for truly great people like Dr. Phil, Oprah Winfry and Rush Limbaugh. The fact that somewhere some people thought they were the greatest American is sad and disturbing. -- Kjkolb 04:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dpbsmith, though I would append the article with the fact that it was in no way a scientific poll. To digress, thanks to Capitalistroadster for making me laugh :) --Isotope23 21:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as I would like to see the article go, it is notable enough to be encyclopaediac Prashanthns 16:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The poll is notable enough, even though it is completely unscientific as stated above, and the article is reasonably well written. I concur with Dpbsmith above that the article should be renamed “Greatest American poll” or something similar to show that the article is not about the greatest American but about the poll itself. ♠DanMS 21:17, 5 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Foundation[edit]

Unverifiable foundation, ex link is dead, but google seaches for The Night Foundation + Joe Hills give no positive results. Delete--nixie 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No Alexa traffic ranking. *drew 04:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete..unable to verify..Dakota ? e 06:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it appears to not be WP:V.--Isotope23 20:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep delete it. Peter --RockMaestro


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Jam[edit]

Promotion, probably not even notable-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd agree, promotional. It also isn't exactly encyclopedic. - Fallsend 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see, now ... it's an advertisement ... for a tiny spin-off ... from a forum that wasn't worth an article in the first place ... gee, I'm going to guess delete.--fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete AD. *drew 04:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jnothman talk 06:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic --Bachrach44 16:18, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Galore[edit]

Non-notable mirconation, together with other silly articles about creators and Galore Junior Kart Championship JPD (talk) 14:08, 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. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Trashbirds[edit]

Does not appear to satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. Important phrases: "founded in December 2004" and "hope to have a record deal by Spring 2006". Also, they are not in allmusic and Google returns 175 hits, some of which are not even relevant to the band mentioned. Also, there is a redirect Trashbirds, the only thing that links to this article. Delete. Joel7687 18:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Way RPG Maker Series[edit]

A video game made from a VG construction kit; no evidence provided to support its claims that it is any more popular or otherwise notable than any other game made with the kit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. After some digging I found the home site of the game; crestfallen.us. No apparent awards on the site but on the forums (577 members) is some mention of them. More digging brought up an award in 2002 from a VG kit tutorial site:

--- Most Original RPG Maker 2000 Game --- "Now, theres been plenty of games that have been accused of being Final Fantasy rip-offs and the like. However, there have also been plenty of games that the designer thought of off the top of his head. Which ideas were great? Which ideas werent so? Heres the nominees for the Most Original RPG Maker 2000 Game!

"Lun, with The Way!"

Lun is the creator of the great RPG Maker 95 game, Crestfallen: Inception. The Way is Luns RPG Maker 2000 project, and is a very pretty game which uses Panoramas instead of chipsets!

Source: http://www.gamingw.net/articles/87

"The Misao Awards for the entire Way series can be viewed here: http://www.rpg-palace.com/games/the_way/" And look at the forums, it has over 150 members.

There is also a mention of another award (the so called Misao) of which the site's down and thus unverifiable.

The lack of verifyable "profesional" awards makes this decision fairly simple, unless the creator of the series can set his modesty aside and show the awards he's won over time. Try contacting the creator of the article. -- L3TUC3 12:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to verify the veracity of the Misao awards, for instance why they've given this RPG the same award 3 years in a row, but the website appears to not exist. That combined with the fact that RPG Maker games are a dime a dozen, pretty much, and I'd say this is a good caniddate for deletion. Mo0[talk] 05:50, 5 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 Wisdom Tree. Physchim62 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisdom Tree[edit]

It's a tree. One particular tree. On the campus of Oberlin College. It's been there for a long time, and a lot of people go sit under it and smoke pot. Julie Adams calls them The Arboreal Sages. I call them, and the tree, non-notable. DS 20:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The tree is just as if not more important to the school and community than many of the buildings and most of the people at the school. If you were interested in the history of the school, you might find this notable.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollbloods[edit]

Either this article is complete poppycock, or it relates to some sort of RPG / video game. As it stands, it's nonsense. --Oscarthecat 21:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 06:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article relates to the Iron Kingdoms role playing and wargaming setting, as developed by Privateer Press. It should be changed to reflect that, but doesn't need to be deleted. The page for the game Hordes contains a link to this article--Gold penguin 06:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I suppose others will want to keep it - in my view an article this size about a minor aspect of a minor game displays a fine disregard for reality and a single para saying it's part of the game would be more than enough for me. I vote delete because at present the article is rubbish: a fictional community cannot have a "rich cultural heritage" and to say so is unencyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Iron Kingdoms.--Isotope23 21:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't need to be deleted or merged. It needs to be cleaned up and more emphasis placed on the fact that this is a fictional community. --DoomSayer--

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Kotsur[edit]

Doesn't seem to be noteable enough on his own Lars T. 18:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (or Expand) per nomination. - Lars T. 18:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep but only just and only because there is nowhere obvious to merge it to. Tough call. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep 10 pgs. on Google. PJM 20:10, 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. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U neab kik[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Though supposedly an internet term, it gets no google hits. NatusRoma 06:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those guys listed must like getting spam. Enochlau 06:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reminding me, as I had initially neglected to deprive them of that joy. I've removed their e-mails now. NatusRoma 06:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is not a notable internet phenomena. And WP is not a listing of every phenomena, (or meme if you prefer). WP:NOT -- Malo 06:31, 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 The result of this debate was Keep (11/0). Nomination was withdrawn anyway. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Max[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. ComCat 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a sucker for Ultraman. TV shows in foreign countries are notable. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup (gee, I wonder if there's any Ultraman fans around who'd be willing to do the job...). ComCat, please stop nominating articles with no more explanation than "NN, D". It is not a good starting point for debate, and doesn't add any more information than a blank nomination would. "NN, D" means "I think it should be deleted", nothing more. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable TV show. Carioca 02:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Television shows shown nationally are normally notable. Nearly 9,500 English hits and I suspect that there are more in Japanese [26]. The Google search in this vote shows that there are DVDs available on E-Bay. Capitalistroadster 02:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above jnothman talk 05:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominator gave no reason as to why this is "NN", escpecially when TV shows are often considered to be "N". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's Ultraman. Herostratus
  • Keep per above. --Holderca1 15:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NN K. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up, and expand.Adbarnhart 07:47, 5 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 wasThe result of this debate was Keep (10 keep, 1 merge). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNATCO (Deus Ex)[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 00:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A very well done article on UNATCO. -drstrangeluv25
  • Keep This is a comprehensive article and a notable subject. Pokemon has whole projects associated with it.--Pypex 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (should not be taken as a vote either way): ComCat, please stop nominating articles simply as "NN D". If you think something should be deleted, tell us why. Give a starting point to the debate. Don't just bung in something you saw and objected to with a copy-and-paste nomination! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Pypex Rangek 02:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we have other fictional organizations. Carioca 02:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Pypex. Agree with MarkGallagher as well that "NN D" is not at all a constructive way of making a nomination. If someone has put in effort to create an article, you owe them at least a fair explanation of why it should be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Holderca1 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NN K. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Deus Ex, though expect that will not happen based on previous voting.--Isotope23 20:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it were just featured in one game I'd consider merging with Deus Ex's main article, but it's a focus of more than one game so it's just as worthy as other fictional organizations. It's no SPECTRE, mind, but still... 23skidoo 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Arcon 18:09, 6 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 deleted per user request. FCYTravis 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alan_Quadros[edit]

This page was an experiment and I didn't realise deleting was not easy for me! 213.18.248.22 17:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VegWorcester[edit]

Website that covers vegeterian issues in Worcester, MA. Does not seem notable (i.e. no google results for VegWorcester JJay 14:50, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Carmichael[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is some kind of fanfiction character related to the WWE? A google hit for '"Victoria Carmichael" WWE' returns 1 hit to a posting on a fan fiction board. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete . Sounds like the real VC is a housewife with kids who has written(?) something about a fictitious VC, which is related to WWE. Neither satisfy the article policies WP:V, WP:NOR. encephalon 22:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio --redstucco 10:16, 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 The result of this debate was No consensus = keep (16/8) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Street[edit]

I found this article while doing Random Page cleanup and it looks like a nn road that is 'short and narrow'. Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC) : Keep saw something about a monopoly pub in there and thought it was the pub and not the game opps. --JAranda | watz sup 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another vote change to Delete per Denni --JAranda | watz sup 04:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Monopoly, dude! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As he says. Pilatus 01:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above, it's even in the lucrative orange section! Flowerparty■ 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- user:zanimum
  • Comment as Devil's Advocate. Vine Street, W1? What about Vine Street, EC3? I hate to be a pedant but where's the proof of the assertion that the Monopoly board Vine Street is in the West End of London and not the City of London? Eddie.willers 05:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being featured on a localized Monopoly board definitely is not a claim of notability. Gazpacho 07:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The London Monopoly board is used throughout the Commonwealth. It is the standard board in Australia making Vine Street of wide interest. Capitalistroadster 08:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 08:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, any street featured in the original version of Monopoly is notable. Proto t c 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable.--JK the unwise 13:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep And whilst on the subject, just why is it that whenever I get the other two orange ones, I can NEVER get bl**dy Vine Street!?? The last twice I played Monopoly this da**ed road helped bankrupt me!! Marcus22 15:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to cite the first two I tried, neither Park Place nor Atlantic Ave refers to Monopoly nor to their eponymous streets in Atlantic City. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep' this please it is notable so we cannot erasie it Yuckfoo 18:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wahoofive. In addition, see Boardwalk with no mention of the most famous of all Monopoly spaces. -- Grev -- Talk 20:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gazpacho. The London version is not the "original" version of Monopoly per Proto; the Atlantic City version is. A few games reach encyclopedic notability; an ordinary space in a variant of a game is never notable enough for a WP article, and I say this as a fan of dozens of games better than Monopoly. Barno 21:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A place of potential curiosity value to millions of people. CalJW 23:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Monopoly makes localized versions of the game for just about every metropolis in the world. That this street is mentioned in one of them doesn't make it notable. --Carnildo 23:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the London board may be used throughout much of the Commonwealth, Canada uses the North American version. If none of the other major street articles recognise their Monopoly counterparts, I see no reason to begin with this one. Denni☯ 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So most people who want to keep this article know nothing about it except that it appears in a local edition of Monopoly. Do I understand correctly? Gazpacho 02:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are quite a few London streets that merit articles, but this don't seem to be one, unless there's something more to say (a Vine St. was mentioned in one Pogues song, but I don't think that does it). Besides, according to our Monopoly (game) article, the original version does not have a single street with an article to itself (and only Boardwalk mentions the correct street at all). When Wilmington, NC gets its own monolpoly board, are we going to have articles on all those streets? -R. fiend 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being on Monopoly alone isn't enough to establish notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Cleared as filed. 09:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two points: First, I think there's a cultural gap opening up here: on this side of the Atlantic the London version of Monopoly - arguably the most popular board game ever invented - is the definitive version of the game. I've no idea how many people (in the UK and elsewhere) have heard of and grown up with this version, but the number must run over hunrdreds of thousands and into the low millions. (So it's hardly a local edition!) Secondly, with something so famous why should there not be an entry for each sqaure of the London board? (Ideally, with copyright permission, to feature an image of the appropriate card). It is of interest to find out that Vine Street has no other claim to fame than it's inclusion on the (over here) most famous Monopoly board. Now I'd like to know about some of the other squares too... Marcus22 10:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many types of localized monopoly boards out there. I seen a limited edition monopoly board of my area Miami, Florida and alot of those roads wont never get an article or they are even in the wrong city, ex: Collins Ave. We dont want every road which its only claim to notablily is being in a monopoly board. --JAranda | watz sup 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, U have to distinguish between local Monopoly versions and national versions. In england there are versions for Cornwall and such places but these are no were near notable enough to mean we should have articles on their streets. However the London bord, is the national version for the U.K so is far more notable.--JK the unwise 15:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major road that has appared on millions of monopoly boards, if this gets deleted then it is a sad day for Wikipedia. We have articles on almost 200 london streets, why bully this one? NSR (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable enough. There are scores of Monopoly fans all over SE Asia too.Prashanthns 16:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I specifically came looking for Vine Street because of its Monopoly links. Ted 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough for me, informative article. All those years I was buying a back street !! --Cactus.man ✍ 08:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's between 0 to 4 houses and possibly a hotel on this street --redstucco 10:12, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VSL1200[edit]

A "drum and bass collective". I'm going to assume that it's a band. AMG doesn't know them. Googling finds a site that used to be at http://www.vsl1200.com, but it's gone now. If they've passed any of the WP:MUSIC criteria, I can't tell. —Cryptic (talk) 11:27, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterclub[edit]

Nothing encyclopedic about this entry; just a description of a building, without reason for it being notable ERcheck 04:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 05:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It almost looks like advertising for the condominium. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not significant, possibly advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Wait, is it a school?!?! No, just another unremarkeable pile of bricks. Marskell 23:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Widdle[edit]

  • Two dicdefs here. Terms have already been transwiki'd. No real potential for expansion. Recommend Delete.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Delirium as attack page. Xoloz 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifacist[edit]

Delete in the name of the glorious Wikipedian nation neologism --Trovatore 17:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a misspelled version of an article that has been deleted many times before. --Fire Star 17:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-attack. PJM 17:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is a 'db-attack' ? 84.66.98.75 18:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read here [[27]] PJM 18:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article has been speedy deleted; someone needs to close this AfD. I left a note on the talk page of the admin who did it, but have not received a response. --Trovatore 22:41, 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 Speedy Delete by Delirium as nonsense/vandalism. --GraemeL (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill by the Water[edit]

Originally created by vandal with simply the text "fuck you all" (see history) FranksValli 08:07, 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup of Bump[edit]

Non-existent event = Vandalism BeteNoir 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedyDelete per nomination. - BeteNoir 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, (some) effort went into this gag. Check out the associated website. Josh Parris # 04:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenon notable..Dakota ? e 06:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be existent ([28] and other google results) but nn (a group of friends) jnothman talk 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn hoax. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this related to Thong Grabbin'? Fg2 04:11, 5 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. Ral315 (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XLS Bicycle[edit]

Non-notable website for an unremarkable bicycle wholesaler. Information copied verbatim from the referenced website (no permission mentioned, so copyvio likely). Delete along with the redirect page XLS Bicycle ( Bicycle Exporter ). Cleduc 03:32, 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 Keep. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Brown[edit]

Not certain whether or not he is sufficiently notable, so I'm opening it up for discussion. --Alan Au 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is he not famous enough? WauloK 22:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but edit to sound less gushing. He sounds reasonably important within his field. Chick Bowen 00:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I have a clue as to what you would like changed, specifically please? :) WauloK 04:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure: refer to him by his last name; replace "has commercial experience" (and similar--it makes it sound like a resume) with something neutral; replace "has always wanted to be a part" (sounds like a vanity page, even though I know this isn't one), also with something neutral. That ought to do it, I think. Chick Bowen 04:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, regrettably - a composer of "music" for mobile phones and game consoles? Give me strength! This article needs to be cut down to about 1/3 the current size - simply removing the superlatives will probably do that :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, appreciate it. I thought it would get canned if it was too small so I try to pad these things out. I guess sometimes it's best to be concise. Btw, I'm a Wiki-n00b if you can't tell ;) WauloK 12:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure how popular he may have been, but he has a significant body of work; I've got roughly 90 songs, and I've seen others listed on sites like audioscrobbler. I do know that he ranked highly in several compos... perhaps that should be made mention of? I'll try to gather some more information on him. Stilist 01:04, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You and the Police[edit]

Self-published book[29].

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOUNG NIGGAZ IN THE NAVY[edit]

Non-notable fiction, allegedly published by CafePress (a vanity publisher) but actually gets zero zero hits searching on cafepress.com ([www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/v0.1/search.aspx?source=searchBox&q=YOUNG+NIGGAZ+IN+THE+NAVY&x=22&y=5]) and zero Google hits ([30]) so even that claim is questionable. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a difference between vanity publishing and POD (print on demand publishing). Both are self-publishing and sufficient grounds for deletion, but people who work with a vanity publisher actually have to pay to have their book published wile there's also options that allow no upfront costs and give part of the profit to the corporation in question. When there's no upfront costs, it's not vanity publishing (technically) but the result remains vanity by Wikipedia terms. - Mgm|(talk) 19:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I inderstand what you're saying, but I think the term vanity press was coined before PoD was invented and, in the end, it's a difference that makes no difference: the publication is, in encyclopaedic terms, insignificant. But I'll use "self-published" in future. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The book appears to exist now [www.cafepress.com/cp/browse/v0.1/design_prod.aspx?q=young%20navy&p=annihilus.35793152&id=9274247&pNo=35793152&fpt=&opt=&c=&pageNo=1], but lack of notability is a sufficent ground for deletion anyway. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Andrew 19:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 19:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all digust me. None of these books are being put down as advertisements. The books DO exist and they are Publish on Demand at Cafepress.com, if you had done a real search for the MOREMONEY front. And who decides what a lack of notability is in a site that is being sold as having conttributions from all regions of the world. If you want to suppress word of my books being spread, then go ahead. Yeah, they're not famous now, no one's ever heard of them, sure,but deleting this article will only be detrimentaing it ever becomig big. Publishing on Demand is a fairly new innovation and all these not book deserve note for that, if nothing else. And check out my books NUKE TALES FROM CVN 70 and AGAINST THE SUMMONER available at Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com. Yeah, you've probably never heard of them either, but their sales are actually pretty good for a nobody like myself.
So delete it if you want, but ultimately the Lion of the House of Judah will decide whether my books become famous are not, not a bunch of hypocrites like you all who want to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.82.55.178 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 November 2005
"And who decides what a lack of notability is in a site that is being sold as having conttributions from all regions of the world." FYI, we, the Wikipedia editors, decide such things here at Articles for Deletion. --Fire Star 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "they're not famous now, no one's ever heard of them" as the person claiming to be th author says above, that pretty well proves that they are not notable. Wikipedia is not a venu for eritign about little known or unknown works in hopes that they will become famous. Taht is what blogs, homepages, and other such sites are for. Wikipedia is for writing about things already well know, or important or significant for soem other reason, so that people who whant to know maore about them can learn. The books may be wonderful, but if "no one's ever heard of them" they don't belong here. Delete DES (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first, foremost, and above all else. Encyclopedia articles are written in accordance with a number of principles that seek to preserve the integrity of the text; ours are embodied in WP:RULES. This article does not meet several important rules, foremost among them being the verifiability requirement. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary. encephalon 22:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, mostly. CafePress isn't a vanity press, it's a print on demand press. The two aren't quite the same thing. --Carnildo 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, thanks to the nominator for taking my note on board. - Mgm|(talk) 10:41, 5 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_4&oldid=1081093258"