Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 30

< September 29	October 1 >

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense/nn-bio --Doc (?) 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe mann[edit]

While an actor with this name exists IMDb he is a not notable actor with a brief appearance in 1 movie. Also the article is slanderous and full of inaccuracies. feydey 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete 64.108.199.247 00:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - nn-bio / nonsense / hoax - Hahnchen 00:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied - borderline nonsense - probable A7 - (long) blatent attack page - I actually wouldn't speedy for any one of them - but add them together, there is really no argument. --Doc (?) 00:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ping972[edit]

Although this webcomic is now defunct, if it were notable, I should be able to find some mention of it in Google. Google only has 25 results for ping972, and a search for ping 972 returns nothing which suggests the webcomic was notable. Article claims it was mentioned by another webcomic, but I don't feel this is notable, nor is being available in 2 languages. - Hahnchen 00:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone makes a much better case for notability than is made by the present article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn webcomic. Dottore So 04:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable web comic. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn web comic Amren ^(talk) 00:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By a Thread[edit]

Bandity. DS 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete --Rschen7754 01:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable band. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band. Cnwb 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band Amren ^(talk) 00:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chili powder (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any kind of source or authority for the name, and no background, these are not starts to a real article. This is self-indulgent article-creation vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL - I know this is precisely what the previous AFD didn't want. I've just looked through all of those listed down to starsomething, and I'm going to say delete for every single one. I really think copying and pasting my comments would be a waste of time and effort. - Hahnchen 00:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so far as I know, there are no famous references, songs, or poems refering to chili powder as a color. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before (need a source, if only an image of the colour) Sliggy 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delte --Optichan 22:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feldspar (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any kind of source or authority for the name, this is useless, This is not a start to a real article. Contains virtually no information not obvious from the article title. The entire contents of this article could be presented much more usefully as an entry in a a table. This is self-indulgent article-creation vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, feldspar is a multi-hued mineral. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, arbitrary. Gazpacho 00:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as BD2412 noted, feldspar is a multi-hued mineral group. Jonathunder 06:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before (need a source, if only an image of the colour) Sliggy 19:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who names a colour after a multi-hued mineral? Delete --Optichan 19:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire brick red[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any kind of source or authority for the name, this is useless, This is not a start to a real article. Contains virtually no information not obvious from the article title. The entire contents of this article could be presented much more usefully as an entry in a a table. This is self-indulgent article-creation vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to firebrick red. Compare for example Central (MTR) or some of the 12,500 Google hits. --Pjacobi 00:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, color of a thing. Gazpacho 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced shade of ochre. *Delete. Pilatus 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Plus it's always going to be a stub unless something monumental happens. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before (need a source, if only an image of the colour) Sliggy 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Optichan 22:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, notable color. Grue 16:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source and not expandable. Carbonite | Talk 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article does no harm whatsoever. Dmn € Դմն 23:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 17:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire engine red[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any kind of source or authority for the name, this is useless, This is not a start to a real article. Contains virtually no information not obvious from the article title. The entire contents of this article could be presented much more usefully as an entry in a a table. This is self-indulgent article-creation vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the color is important for what it evokes, and why. Also, Allmusic.com reveals no fewer than nine songs or versions of songs with this name, which is plenty more than "Olive-yellow" would ever get. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable reference color, used to described othee shades of red "x is between fire engine red and y" because of the common assumption, that it is a well known and fixed color. Unfortunately this isn't the case (and all sort of different identifications are in use, e.g. to PMS 185 and PMS 032). --Pjacobi 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have several pictures to satisfy curiosity about the color of fire trucks. Furthermore, the color isn't uniform even when red (as I recently found out during an alarm), although you might assume so if you stay in one city long enough. Gazpacho 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonably widespread colour term. And it's not the same as the colour of fire engines — they can be green. Flower party■ 01:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not even that, then why is it notable? Gazpacho
Keep. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't have expected to vote this way, but BDA's evidence swayed me. Xoloz 05:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it would make much more sense to delete the color page and make a separate page for the song (or songs) than to leave both of them together. -Nameneko 06:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only if merged with Red. What more is there to say that justifies a separate article? Jonathunder 07:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced in songs. Widespread. Per other keepers. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 08:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be expanded to discuss the history of the use of the color in fire departments and the nine songs BDA found. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the few of these worth keeping. Why are fire engines red? What is the history of the use of this colour for fire engines? Are they all the same red? And - other than the one by The Grid - what are the other eight songs??? Grutness...wha? 12:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and list all of the songs. (Probably dispatch the infobox though). --TimPope 16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This colour is more notable than the other ones on AfD. I think I may have heard of this term too. --Optichan 19:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with keeping all of the color articles, I argue keep for this one. This color has a lot of cultural ties, from (apparently 9 songs, to being a common cosmetic name (especially nail polish and lipstick, in my experience), and probably lots of other uses we don't know of yet. Expand. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify my above reference to "nine songs or versions of songs". The reference only lists seven artists, so I think two of them re-recorded or remixed the song. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep but only if it can be demonstrated that (essentially) all red fire engines are the (essentially) the same shade of red. MCB 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that's important, so long as a significant number of fire engines are a particular shade, such that it would be the one people think of. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. The article needs considerable expansion and I'm unconvinced that fire engines are the same shade of red the world over, but at least there's some kind of source. Sliggy 12:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs expansion. -Sean Curtin 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've heard of this, although I don't know how much expansion is possible. Carbonite | Talk 16:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with red. The Literate Engineer 02:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic Rose[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any kind of source or authority for the name, this is useless, This is not a start to a real article. Contains virtually no information not obvious from the article title. The entire contents of this article could be presented much more usefully as an entry in a a table. This is self-indulgent article-creation vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rose (color) if the latter is kept; this is a variation of a color, not a stand-alone topic. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverified, non-notable. Gazpacho 00:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is a vote. (Just like Metallic Rose is a color). Cursive 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rose, list as a variant (or shade) of - Anetode 07:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before (need a source, if only an image of the colour) Sliggy 19:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Optichan 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olive-yellow[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any kind of source or authority for the name, this is useless, This is not a start to a real article. Contains virtually no information not obvious from the article title. The entire contents of this article could be presented much more usefully as an entry in a a table. This is self-indulgent article-creation vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - color combinations are not notable by themselves. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Gazpacho 01:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of a potentially infinite number of possible colours. Flower party■ 01:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before (need a source, if only an image of the colour) Sliggy 19:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "a mix of the colors yellow and olive". How extremely obvious. --Optichan 19:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pale gray-red[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - color combinations are not notable by themselves. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Gazpacho 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a potentially infinite number of combinations. Flower party■ 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to vote on the ones I dislike unless necessary, but this color combination strikes as obscure, if not ridiculous. Xoloz 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a silly name for Lavender. Jonathunder 06:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crap article about non-notable colour with no source. Sliggy 12:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Optichan 23:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Sunset[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be fashioned from whole cloth; at the very least, not notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverified, nn. Gazpacho 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced Pilatus 01:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like an Iranian sunrise to me. In any case, delete. Jonathunder 06:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before (need a source, if only an image of the colour) Sliggy 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Optichan 19:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. And this one is even more preposterous. MCB 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pink-cerise[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - color combinations are not notable by themselves. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Huh? Gazpacho 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced Pilatus 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jonathunder 06:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before, need a source Sliggy 19:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Optichan 23:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red-pink[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - color combinations are not notable by themselves. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Gazpacho 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced Pilatus 01:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Red-pink is a mix of the colors red and pink." Delete before someone is tempted to make Pinkish red. Jonathunder 06:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before, need a source Sliggy 19:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Optichan 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 17:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Prince's headwear preferences. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per BD2412. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BD2412, if for no other reason than his fine work on this matter, which earns him deference from me. Xoloz 05:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raspberry, which does mention what color they usually are. The Prince Raspberry Beret bit is one sentence and can be covered there; it hardly merits keeping a separate article for that. Jonathunder 06:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the song is about the color not the fruit. Kappa 07:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per BD2412. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but slay the infobox of unverfied info --TimPope 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BD2412. --Optichan 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See my arguments for fire engine red as they also apply here (though I suppose not to the same extent in the case of songs). --Jacquelyn Marie 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, marginally sourced. Sliggy 12:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 18:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for all the reasons that there was no consensus to delete this one in the earier AfD - even if some of the current material needs to be scrapped, rose is definitely a notable color. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I voted delete all up top, and I would still delete this one. Surely, this would be better if just included in the Rose article, its not like theres a lot of information here is there? - Hahnchen 00:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This one has more potential than most - it can be found in poetry, literature, music, heraldry - consider the expression, "rose-colored glasses"! -- BD2412 ^talk 00:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there are enough cultural references for this. Pilatus 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this one is rather widespread. I'd suggest replacing the sample with a picture of a red rose though. Gazpacho 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Petra, John William Burgon

Match me such marvel save in Eastern clime,

A rose-red city - half as old as time!

Dlyons493 Talk 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412. --BorgQueen 03:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dlyons493. Xoloz 05:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rose, which talks about what colors (plural) they can be. Jonathunder 06:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point, Jonathunder. Roses, as flowers, can be many colors, even blue nowadays, but Rose, as a color, refers to a particularly vivid, emotive, highly literarily notable shade of red. Xoloz 08:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - very widespread colour. Much expansion possible. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 08:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but annihiliate the silly infobox --TimPope 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sliggy 19:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BD2412. This is a notable colour. --Optichan 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand with many, many references from English literature alone! --Jacquelyn Marie 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaerocobaltite (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another multi-hued mineral, not a specific color. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Unreferenced, delete. Pilatus 01:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, arbitrary. Gazpacho 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Used to define one axis of Jusko's "Real Color Wheel" [1], which seems to have some moderately significance. Keep --Pjacobi 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(It's used to specify magenta). Gazpacho
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as before, need a source Sliggy 19:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. MCB 00:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Terra cotta. -Splash^talk 18:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra cotta (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to terra cotta, currently a very short article which should contain information on the color of the material and its use in art, architecture, and design for that very purpose. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
This shade looks much like red ochre to me. Here we see the problem: all these colour stubs are unreferenced 16-bit RGB triplets. Delete this one. Pilatus 00:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it's merely redirects (since there's nothing verifiable to merge), the RGB triplets would disappear, so that should not be a concern. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Also a notable color. Sometimes identified with PMS 160 or even PMS 174, but these are to dark. Go with Canada Post and say PMS 470 (or amongst the extended four digit set, PMS 7413). Note that Canada Post would stop working without the color terra cotta, see [2]. Keep --Pjacobi 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, color of a thing. Gazpacho 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to terra cotta. Cursive 02:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to terra cotta per BDA. Xoloz 05:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting would be pointless, as there are so few articles that link there. Simply changing the link for the one article that links to Terra cotta (color) to Terra cotta would make much more sense and would help with future use of the term. What I'm saying is that if there is nothing verifiable to merge and the page is simply going to be turned into a redirect, there would be little necessity for the page, as it is just more complicated to link to the redirect than it would be to link to the article it redirects to. -Nameneko 06:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting is also useful in preventing future accidental recreation of an article. Although it is much more likely someone would search without the qualifier, if they do, this will prevent them from being given the oh-so-tempting "write-me" redlink. Besides, they're cheap. Xoloz 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. Redirect. However, when merged, the color portion shouldn't go overboard. We don't need information on "dark terra cotta" or "pale terra cotta" or "aquamarineish terra cotta with a hint of magenta-cyan", just the color "terra cotta". -Nameneko 22:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - True story - one of the secretaries at my work came to my office to show me the choices of tile she might put in her patio, and she said, "I'm between the red and the terra cotta" and I jumped up from my chair and went, "Aha!" - she must've thought I was crazy. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with terra cotta and redirect. Do not keep as a separate article. Jonathunder 07:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge & redirect as per above Anetode 07:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Terra Cotta per BD. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 08:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to prevent re-creation. MCB 00:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; do not keep as a separate article. Sliggy 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and sensibly merge to terra cotta. -Sean Curtin 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Tomato. This is the only one of these that is at all difficult to call. We're just about over two-thirds to delete on numbers, and I don't honestly understand why people think this is useful as a redirect given the vast unlikeliness of anybody thinking to search for it, parentheses and all. However, given how clear the other debates were, and the vascillation by Tim Pope, I'll say there's not outright consensus to delete and will apply the redirect. RfD may feel differently if someone wants to try that. -Splash^talk 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato (color)[edit]

All of the colour articles were subject to a blanket AfD here. This was closed as a delete all, although the talk page for that AfD was tabulated otherwise. VfU opted to undelete all the articles and give them seperate AfDs (see the bottom of VfU for my reasoning on this). So here they are. If you wish to make a blanket comment on these articles please copy paste your comment into each — do not expect the closer to extrapolate your intent in these exceptional circumstances. Thank you. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tomato, which has plenty of info on the color of tomatoes. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There isn't even any content in this article; the RGB components are listed as question marks. --Quintin3265 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to X11 color names, where this one is referenced. Pilatus 00:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be satisfied with that redirect as well. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, color of a thing. Gazpacho 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my vote in previous Afd Dlyons493 Talk 01:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of references per concensus in previous AfD. -Nameneko 06:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tomato, which talks about what colors they are. Jonathunder 06:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to tomato. The color given was wrong anyway. My tomato was much redder. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect, since it would make the impression, that this colour is in use. feydey 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete last time around I said merge if sourced, but there is still no source --TimPope 16:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- … or redirect as per Pilatus. --TimPope 16:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where did all these "colors" come from? --Optichan 19:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are millions of distinguishable colors; this source says seven to ten million of them. And if we don't nip this in the bud, someone is going to try to write an article on every single one of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My (imperfect) recall is that humans can distinguish 16 million colours; in any case, there far too many to warrant this type of article. Delete. Sliggy 12:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per TimPope. Contains no information not implicit in its title. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meaningful-content-free color articles. I just voted to delete 8 color articles, and all I got was this T-Shirt! MCB 00:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly, meaningless color articles--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real color. Grue 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starsomething[edit]

None notable Keenspace comic found here along with the martian surface forums here. A run of just over 60 comics followed by a hiatus since November last year. The article makes no assertion of notability, there is nothing here to distinguish this from every other website out there. - Hahnchen 00:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with RPG World or Adventurers. This is a (defunct) side project of the creators of those two webcomics. (Personally, I'd favor RPG World, but I'll ask the creators what they think.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Justin Bacon 06:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic Boppu[edit]

A defunct webcomic hosted on keenspace, found here. A google search along with the article content show no assertion of notability. Although the comic apparently lasted over 3 years from 2001 to 2004, this does not mean it is notable, no matter what WP:COMIC may claim. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the dead, moreover it is not a memorial to dead websites. - Hahnchen 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Be careful about the adversarial tone, though, please; I disagree with WP:COMIC too, but the standards were made in good faith. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a memorial for the dead. While the main comic has ended, that was only due to the storyline coming to an end. It's not because the Webcomic artist gave up on it. Her latest comic is still set in the same "world" as Demonic Boppu, and is in many ways a sequel. I had every intention of adding to this article when I had time, and more information. I'm sorry if you do not agree with the standards of WP:COMIC but in many ways the comic meets those standards. Perhaps you should set your sights on changing the standards first? Arleas 23:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- May I introduce you to comixPedia, a wiki for comics? You should start and expand your article on Demonic Boppu there, it doesn't exist yet. I know if you were a fan of the comic, it's nice to see an article on wikipedia, but it really isn't the place for it, especially ones which have not stated their notability. - Hahnchen 16:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Error (webcomic)[edit]

A non notable webcomic which can be found here. Although Alexa figures can be misleading, a ranking of over 2 million must mean it is not popular. A google search for syntax errors comic shows up nothing which would make this website more notable than any other, and a google search for syntax errors just gives pages about actual syntax errors. Yet again, this is a comic found on wikipedia and not Comixpedia where it belongs, due to the massively lax inclusion criteria at WP:COMIC. - Hahnchen 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Webcomic of no influence or notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that the article is singular but the web comic is plural: Syntax Errors. RJFJR 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (at least in some form) and move to correct spelling. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vercvactor[edit]

Very Very minor Roman God 412 Google hits very little for a Roman God almost of them non related or licened from here. Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all figures from major mythologies. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could there be a place to put this like List of minor Roman gods --JAranda | yeah 00:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good idea, Listify minor roman gods. - Hahnchen 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've corrected the capitalization in above list suggestion. "Minor" shouldn't have been capitalized and God is only capitalized when it refers to the highest power in a monotheistic religion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, (or keep if there is demonstrable potential for significant expansion). -- BD2412 ^talk 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Same as BD2412 above Tintin 01:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid encyclopedia entry. Cnwb 05:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable hoax. There is no reference to any such god in Edith Hamilton's Mythology, and the word Vercvator isn't even a possible word of Latin. The handful of hits for Vercvactor as the Roman god of first ploughing on non-Wikipedia-mirror sites (as opposed to its use as a User name in various internet forums and the like) makes me suspect a hoax initiated outside Wikipedia and duplicated here in good faith. But a hoax nonetheless. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)I figured it out: Vercvactor is just a typo. The real spelling is Vervactor, and he's already mentioned at Ceres. Redirect to Ceres. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, if not a hoax. It is mentioned on Pantheon.org. -- Kjkolb 06:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the article on Pantheon was apparently created in 1997. -- Kjkolb 06:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I've just sent them an e-mail asking for published verification of "Vercvactor"'s existence. I'll keep you posted.
Redirect to Ceres as per Angr. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why redirect to Ceres when it's a different god altogether? Also, Agree with List of minor Roman gods--Kewp 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because AFAICT he's only ever mentioned as a helper of Ceres. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to correct spelling (obviously), hopefully expand, but if not eventually listify, if there are enough other Roman god substubs like this floating around. There's no point in such a list of there's only 1 or 2 gods in it. Also, keep in mind 426 hits for any minor thing from ancient Rome is the equvalent of 426,000 hits for anything sci-fi related today. -R. fiend 14:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and pertinent information and create a redirect at the correct spelling to Ceres. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to proper spelling and either keep or merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to proper spelling Justin Bacon 06:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Vaz[edit]

Was becoming a revert mess (speedy not speedy) by a couple of users, so I tagged it AFD better, Abstain -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a vanity page with no encyclopedic value. Citizen Premier 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also', it has been deleted once before. Citizen Premier 05:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, or encyclopedic. mostly vanity. --Alhutch 01:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Controversies in student newspapers are not notable, even at Harvard. Nor, with a very few exceptions, is anyone in the "Class of 2008." -- SCZenz 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Tintin 01:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn v --Rschen7754 01:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being interviewed by a school newsletter does not make one notable for an encyclopedia. [edit] 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox & Apple[edit]

Non notable webcomic which can be found here. The comic looks defunct with a run of 29 strips on their archive. Nothing I can find suggests it's more notable than any other website. - Hahnchen 01:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a webcomic of little influence or importance. It's a shame, too, Dave McGuire is a nice guy, and if I keep up these delete votes they're going to ban me from #4tt. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --Hoovernj 21:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Shockingly. Amazingly. Unusually. -Splash^talk 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anne School (Seattle, Washington)[edit]

Delete as this does not appear to be encyclopedic material. [edit] 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable alumni / no notable discoveries / no notable events / not gonna get deleted anyway - Hahnchen 01:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable middle school. Pburka 01:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yellow Pages. Pilatus 01:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools - it verifiably exists. Dlyons493 Talk 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it does exist and we keep other school articles. --Rschen7754 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What other equally notable schools have been kept? Why not just merge this stub to a broader article detailing education in Seattle, WA? [edit] 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school even though its going to be kept --JAranda | yeah 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's wonderful reasoning. You think an article should be deleted even though you know there won't be consensus! Perhaps you should give having a look at the policy a go? Grace Note 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm surprised that you advise looking at policy while insulting someone. I would think that you would be better off doing one or the other. --Blackcap | talk 06:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because he knows his vote not add to the consensus doesn't mean he's not allowed to mention it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you speaking to me or Grace? I don't see how your comment applies to me, but that's who it looks like you're talking to. --Blackcap | talk 16:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This line of reasoning is rather like saying that voting for third parties that have very little hope of winning elections is pointless. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it's more of a part of the systematic attempt by the schoolcruft gang to indimidate anyone who disagrees with their patently ridiculous views. Dunc|☺ 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is probabably a good idea to stop promoting the idea that because a large number of editors disagree with you on this subject they must all be involved in a grand conspiracy - lest people conclude that it is you who are the one holding "patently ridiculous views".--Centauri 08:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is an educational institution which is important to the community it serves. Additional reasons for including this article may be read at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which only proves we can have an article on Education in Seattle. Just because education is noteworthy doesn't mean a school automatically is too. Merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All schools are important to the community they serve. Inclusion in an encyclopedia suggests something of universal public noteworthiness; elsewise WP would engulf the whole internet. To include it in a ONE-PAGE list of ALL schools in Seattle, on the other hand, would probably be quite useful. Twang
Keep. Usual reasons. Grace Note 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good substantial stub, no contest. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concise and completely adequate coverage of the topic. Inclusion in wikipedia should be determined by the kind of things people would reasonably hope to find in it. Kappa 07:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Even at this short length it is rambling and padded - "Here is a quote from the St. Anne home page" it says. Better off merging into a wider overview of such schools - possibly to a new Catholic schools in Seattle rather than the Education in Seattle table. Don't waste the time of people reading the pages - all we need from the current article is name, founding date, age range taught and number of students, and you can do that in a table with the rest of the Catholic schools in Seattle (since there are four catholic high schools, I'd assume there are a number of catholic primary schools). The rest is waffle. Average Earthman 09:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote is not waffle, it is essential to an NPOV article to represent the school's POV of itself. Kappa 22:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please do not nominate any more schools. It is a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 09:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, local grocery shops are more important to their community than schools. Can't go to school if you're dead of starvation. Just because something is provided as a public service and involves children or something equally cute doesn't mean it's more important than any local business, or the public gasworks for that matter. Oh lord, forgive us our cruft, as we forgive those who cruft against us, and lead us not into inclusionism, but deliver us from American high schools and garage bands... --Last Malthusian 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please do not merge this the school is from 1923 so it can expand Yuckfoo 16:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfectly good start to an article on this inherently notable school.--Nicodemus75 19:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools are not deserving of articles in an encyclopedia. Dunc|☺ 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a worthwhile article on a unique school. Do not merge, since it would mean people who do want to find it, won't be able to, while people neither looking nor interested in the specific school will see it mixed in with stuff they are interested in. Those not interested in this article should ignore it, and worry about creating and improving articles they are interested in. --rob 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hahnchen. Marskell 20:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No particualr indication of notability, and this is a primary school, which means I would require rather exceptional notability. DES ^(talk) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 22:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep ALKIVAR™ 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a real school that does not assert that school's importance or significance. Denni ☯ 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Why are we still nominating schools for deletion? --Centauri 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With every single one of the articles listed in the September 21 mass-nomination of elementary and middle school articles now closed as a no consensus keep, the success rate of school deletion listings has dropped from its previous low of 13% earlier in September to 11% now. And from now on nobody on Wikipedia will regard elementary school deletions as a pushover. So far for September, one school article has been deleted for 49 kept. The deleted article was a hoax. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it may almost be time to re-open a wide-ranging debate about Policy. Given the survival of almost all schools at the AfD process, the chronic nomination of schools (particularly mass-nominations) is steering very close to disruptive behavior, going forward. I think the question needs to be put to those that do not believe schools to be notable institutions in their own right, how many elementary schools have to survive the AfD process in order to establish a "rough concensus" that school articles (and stubs) should not be deleted? I'm not merely asking this rhetorically, but how many AfD votes that do not result in article deletion are necessary to establish "rough concensus" to "not delete" (as opposed to a concensus to "keep")? An honest and open debate on that question will soon need to begin, in order to end the abuse of AfD with multi and mass-nominations of school stub articles that will doubtless survive the AfD process. The issue is not whether schools should be debated on "their own merits" but whether or not "elementary schools are non-notable" is a legitimate reason to nominate an article (or 21 of them in one day) for AfD. If a policy can established on that question, then we could actually debate each school on it's merits as an article.--Nicodemus75 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "elementary schools are non-notable" is not a valid reason to put one on AfD, but "this elementary schools is non-notable" is a good reason. However, it's impossible to actually do this at the moment, because of the large "schools are notable by definition" movement. It is clear that the continuing nominations of NN schools for AfD indicate a sizable minority of Wikipedians disagree with the premise that schools are inherently notable. A middle ground is required - as has already been suggested, a page with a table of schools in a particular district (and other misc. info like roll size, founding date, etc.), and any notable schools can be linked to from their entry on that table.--inks 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's that simple. Vegaswikian 06:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also simple. Why people wage a useless war to fight something wanted by a large portion of the community still baffles me. I don't like or dislike school articles, but I see reasonably that enough folks do such that they will always live. Xoloz 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought schools were not to be deleted any more, it wastes time. Let us vote on an offical policy to have schools not be deleted just for being a school article, I'm sure that policy will pass if someone puts it to a vote ;). --ShaunMacPherson 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per User:Twang. This topic is in grave danger of becoming "Keep articles on schools, because we always do, it's tradition", if we just fast forward a few years :) --inks 08:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In grave danger? This has already happened, even if some haven't caught on yet. Because WP embraces consensus (and keeps by default unless ~70% favor deletion), and because enough committed editors care about these articles (claiming schools are public institutions, and ipso facto, notable), these articles will almost always stay. NB: I don't care, really; I don't know whether I think schools are notable, but I understand that enough people do such that a decision has effectively already been taken. Soon enough, indifferent editors like me will understand the same, and this rough keep consensus will become policy. Xoloz 08:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problems with a broad "keep articles on schools" policy is the inevitable extension to encompass primary schools, kindergardens, creches, technical schools, military schools, vocational colleges, language schools, art schools, schools for the gifted (and not so gifted) and other innumerable variations of organised education. I would personally prefer each article to be debated on its own merits, which happens for just about everything else. A quick look at the comments on this page suggests that I'm not alone here (although I am outnumbered) :)--inks 09:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the fear of extension to kindergartens and language schools is exaggerated. I don't see why you want to debate every single article on wikipedia "on its merits", there are far too many new articles to do that. Kappa 12:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Over the past year the argument has shifted from just keeping all secondary schools, to now keeping primary schools as well- I fail to see why this trend will not continue. The problem with school article votes is that there a lot of people who believe schools are always notable simply for being a school. A minority of the people who bother voting on these articles believe that school articles should demonstrate notability in the same way bands, websites, etc have to (i.e. they should be more notable than the average). This is yet another average school, so delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --G Rutter 20:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think your belief that there are a lot of people who think kindergartens are always notable for being kindergartens is mistaken. Kappa 23:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, we now have a majority who think elementary schools are always notable for being elementary schools. Perhaps kindergardens might be a bit of a stretch, but the point regarding "definition creep" is still valid. We debate every other AfD entry on merit, it seems odd to exclude schools from this process.--inks 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        We don't debate villages, or universities, or metro stations, or major league baseball players, or pokemons, or Simpons episodes, or battleships... Kappa 00:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps we should. I Agree to disagree, and appreciate your comments :) --inks 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Kappa, you have not been here long enough to remember when even high schools had to meet notability criteria. At that time, those who expressed concerns that elementary schools would be next on the list if high schools were granted automatic right-to-exist status were pooh-poohed. Look, however, at the last spate of AfD nominations, and the comments made by users such as yourself. I will not be surprised at all when arguments begin to be made for the automatic inclusion of kindergartens and daycares, on the sole ground that they are "inherently notable". This is what I fight. I have no objection whatever to articles on genuinely notable schools. I would have no objection to an article on a genuinely notable daycare or kindergarten either. At the same time, I oppose the blanket inclusion of any public institution. And yes, if I had my druthers, battleships, Simpsons episodes, and baseball playeres would all have to meet entry criteria as well. It is, however, a disingenuous argument that just because they are currently immune from AfD, so too should something else be. (Oh, and trust me, pokemon characters are not all sacrosanct. I've happily seen a few go into the furnace recently.) Denni ☯ 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I feel motivated to speak in Kappa's defense here. Kate's tool says he has been here since Sept. 2004, and that you've only been here eight months longer, Denni. No offense, but I do believe it's natural and expected for consensus to evolve, and I think its a bit irrelevant to refer to an older state of affairs that apparently existed 21 months ago, but had dissolved as early as 13 months ago, as if it were of precedential value. On a related note, it seems to me that the "rump" of opposition that continues to fight high schools only serves to promote other schools. Those who oppose schools rarely make any distinction among grade-levels, so why should their adversaries. Xoloz 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, but I think Kappa is perfectly capable of speaking in his own defense if he chooses to. Denni ☯ 01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thanks Xolox well put. As I said, I think the fears of people claiming daycares to be "inherently notable" are exaggerated, but the most likely way to create such people is by continually attacking educational institutions as non-notable. The idea that consensus should be torn up on baseball players, Simpsons episodes etc, seems an incredibly retrograde step, exposing every editor who would try to improve such articles to a semi-random threat of deletion. Kappa 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh....so you mean to say that if we keep saying X is non-Notable, people will tend to think the opposite??--inks ^T 03:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If you keep saying "non-notable, delete" about things that people think should be kept, it will reduce the amount of notability they demand from any topic. Kappa 04:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If you keep saying "notable, keep" about things that people think should be deleted, it will increase the amount of notability they demand from any topic. Nobody wins, and Wikipedia loses. I think consensus is transient and relative to a particular article - to try and extend it to a class of articles results in the current problem. Not all schools (or Pokemon) are created equal.--inks ^T 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        You could call it "transient" and "relative" but to me it seems a lot like "inconsistent" and "arbitrary". Kappa 05:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If you agree that consensus is "inconsistent" and "arbitrary", how can you then state that there exists consensus on school articles?? *confused*--inks ^T 01:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus on a class of articles is more consistent and less arbitrary than semi-random decisions on each one. However, I certainly don't claim consensus exists on schools, the deletionists reject all attempts to build it. Kappa 10:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- DS1953 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Dottore So 20:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable and NPOV information of a school. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Un focused 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps a worthwhile mental exercise when considering AfDs relating to institutions is to imagine the subject as a person. In this case, we would have "St Anne's School is a teacher who lives in Seattle. She is five foot four, has brown hair and blue eyes (this is the equivalent of the data on the school's ethnic makeup). She thinks she's a very good teacher." Would that be notable? The fact that the school is a few thousand times bigger than a person makes no odds - zero notability multiplied by a thousand equals zero notability. --Last Malthusian 13:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- that is your opinion lm but not one that really holds up because schools are not humans it is kind of like comparing a can of apple sauce and an apple sauce factory Yuckfoo 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not so much trying to argue notability or lack of, but suggesting a different approach: the question of whether these articles contain any encyclopaedic information. Ethnicity data for a school or an American county may look impressive, but without some kind of "value-added" it's no more useful than someone's eye colour. And my other argument stands: if an entity consists of several thousand people, it means nothing if they're all non-notable. --Last Malthusian 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I'm concerned ethnicity data for an American country or a school adds a great deal of value. It tells me a lot more about a person or community than eye color does. Kappa 02:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? It's raw data, with absolutely no value. "The high proportion of Hispanics in this school/county has created ethnic tension" or "His blue eyes secured him the role of Inspector Knacker in Crime Drama X" are useful information, but this is completely absent in this case. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Last Malthusian 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I feel I know a person better if I know their ethnic background, and the same for a school or a county. If it was a university in Kazakhstan, wouldn't you like to know what proportion of students were Kazakhs and what proportion were Russian? Kappa 17:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - you are allowed your own opinion it is just that not everyone agrees with what you on what is or is not notable that is all Yuckfoo 03:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - People disagreeing with my opinion? On an AfD page? My God, I'd better leave before I permanently damage my health. --Last Malthusian 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        your sarcasm is so heavy I had to use a towel... ALKIVAR™ 11:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm tired of retyping the same justification for worthless articles being deleted.Gateman1997 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, doesn't assert any notability. Grue 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is about a school, not a person, so CSD A7: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" cannot apply.--Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 21:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 21:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge do not keep this non-notable school as is. Reads like an ad too. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a public service, I make it Delete - 16, Keep - 18, and Merge - 4 as of this line :)--inks^T 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Looks like no chance of deletion, so our efforts are rewarded. Kappa 10:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 23:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Devious vs. Lincoln High[edit]

A webcomic, found here, along with its haunted house forums here, with all its 50 members. No assertion of notability, google search brings up nothing to assert notability either, although I have found out that Dr Devious was a previous Derby winner. - Hahnchen 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 02:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom plus the Alexa rank of 1,275,000 or so. -Splash^talk 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn web comic Amren ^(talk) 00:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dragonfiend 21:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film Presentation[edit]

Personal Essay/Discussion Forum for an English Class. A recreation of the 149 Presentation idea [3] (only editor of both was User:Engl149), and 149 Presentation was speedied 4 times before protection from recreation. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider nor is it a place for personal essays or discussion forums. Cursive 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Almost speedy as recreation of (speedy) deleted material, but will err on side of caution as there is more substance (even if it is barely recoverable to non essay like form) than before. - Cursive 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a textbook. Wikibooks? And it is also not NPOV. --Rschen7754 01:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inapproriate use of Wikipedia resources. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan dings[edit]

Obscure bandcruft NeilN 01:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete since I only see claims that he's good, not notable. --DavidConrad 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as membership of band that doesn't appear to meet WP:music seems to be his only claim to notability. It is not an A7 speedy as it asserts notability - it just doesn't establish it. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline speedy under A7. Pburka 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN artist. Cnwb 05:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The All-American Good Looking Guys[edit]

This article is either a hoax or band vanity. Can't find on Google or All Music. -- Kjkolb 01:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity, ad too. --Rschen7754 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Flower party■ 02:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity --Alynna 14:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They may be "a real band.. found on myspace" per author, but they fail WP:Music. --W.marsh 16:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

They meet this criteria, as they are the primary band in their genre of the city of Severna Park, Maryland. Their genre being Experimental in areas of grundge and grindcore. Do not delete.

Delete NN ...en passant! 15:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Rx StrangeLove 00:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Big Fat Pizza Party[edit]

~~Delete~~ as this does not appear to be notable. This is a one paragraph stub about a single episode of the Disney Channel's That's So Raven. [edit] 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with show above or delete. --Rschen7754 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an episode guide for Season 2. Nateji77 04:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge. I was planning on bringing this article up for a vote anyway. Prime example of an orphan article whose content is better served in the larger article. This reads like a TV Guide listing as it is. - Lucky 6.9 23:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge instead to a seasonal episode guide article to prevent more of these type of articles. [edit] 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nn-bio (A7) --Doc (?) 08:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed al-Hasani[edit]

Delete. No claim of notability. Claim that some of his ancestors were notable, but nothing in the article claims that this person has done anything noteworthy. ♠DanMS 01:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Jkelly 03:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petrea Burchard[edit]

This is not an article, this is a minor actress' CV (complete with headshot). And no, clean-up won't make her any more notable. Delete. Calton | Talk 01:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per her IMDb page. Notable enough. I'll rework some of it since it reads like vanity/promotion right now. --TM ^(talk) 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyvio/vanity. [4] has exactly the same text, and claims that it is "(direct from her via email)". Delete as is but will reconsider after re-write. Cursive 02:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll convert it to a short stub. --TM ^(talk) 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pretty short but the article's history shows numerous editors so it should be expanded by others in the future. --TM ^(talk) 02:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, now it's not so crufty and blatantly stolen from link above - I like that you've made it into a reference. And she probably passes notability for me. Keep Cursive 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she appears to be an actress featured by IMDb, that is notable enough for me. [edit] 02:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - petrea's career is constantly growing i believe and she deserves a spot on this site. i'd hate to see her page go. - hwp
Delete Seems borderline to me. So I'll go for delete to make nom feel happier ;) Marcus22 11:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable actress. The last reason given to delete doesn't make much sense, but then again maybe it wasn't meant to be, or what Marcus? Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for delete is that the actress concerned seems too borderline in my opinion to be included. The last bit is tongue-in-cheek. Marcus22 14:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved somewhat since it was listed for deletion. Also agree with nominator that she appears to be a minor actress, but in my opinion she is still notable enough to be included amongst the hundreds of other voice actors we document here. Hall Monitor 18:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per IMDb. However, I wonder about the copyright status of the image.Hektor 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This does seem borderline, but in my opinion tie goes to the article. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bit actress, except for one voice role. Why do people feel mention in IMDb renders an actor notable? IMDb lists everyone who has ever played a role important enough to appear in the movie credits. Denni☯ 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, except for one voice role. We have an entire category devoted to voice actors as well as Japanese voice actors. [edit] 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TV bit parts and one recurring role as the non-primary voice actor for a character doesn't make her notable, IMO Justin Bacon 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Bear community. -Splash^talk 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musclebear[edit]

Neoplogism ≈ jossi ≈ 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be deleted, it's a valid term, and not even that new of a term. If the bear community deserved an entry I don't see why this doesn't. --70.248.132.82 01:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Twenty-two thousand hits on Google for "musclebear". I'm torn between Keep and Transwiki to Wiktionary, though, because I am not sure that there is enough verifiable material to make an article out of it. Most of the hits are for gyms and porn sites. Jkelly 03:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bear community, which covers the same ground and even defines "muscle bear." Doctor Whom 03:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Doctor Whom. Jkelly 04:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Doctor Whom. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamil al Banna[edit]

nn ≈ jossi ≈ 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Jossi, you tagged this article with Afd within one minute of my creating it. I'd like to invite you to volunteer a reason for its deletion. -- Geo Swan 02:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He did: nn (non-notable). And by the way, this article is close to a speedy candidate for not asserting notability (WP:CSD A7), though that's debatable. This fellow's only claim to fame is being a prisoner (of which there are hundreds of thousands) and for being a refugee (of which there are also hundreds of thousands). Perhaps you should provide a reason that this should be kept, but that's just a thought. However, unless this article shows some display of notability, I'll say delete. --Blackcap | talk 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep due to Vizjim's research. Makes me wonder, though: why is it that there's always more information in an AfD than there is in the actual article? --Blackcap | talk 15:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a prisoner isn't notable enough for me, no matter at which prison. If Geo Swan can expand it then I may change my vote. Wouldn't it be better for an article on UK detainees at Guantanamo summarising the prisoners as a whole? - Hahnchen 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although I haven't personally checked the facts, I'll assume they are correct and he is indeed one of the few notable prisoners there. When I originally voted, there was nothing to distinguish him from other prisoners. Nice work. - Hahnchen 17:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Jamil al Banna's case has been the cause of controversy (see [5]). The only redirect that would make sense would be to an article called something like Foreign-born British residents without citizenship imprisoned at Guantánamo. But even then the problem is that the citizenship issues for a Palestinian like al Banna are quit different from those such as Iraqi-born Bisher al-Rawi. For this reason I would strongly favour having a separate page for each man, where details of their cases can be given. The legal case around the internment of these men is the touchstone for formulations of international law in the last four years, and will probably help to define the concept of international law for another decade or more. For that reason each individual case is highly notable and encyclopedic. I've expanded the article a little, and would expect that this expansion will continue with input from more legally-minded contributors. Vizjim 10:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Vizjim. Dlyons493 Talk 13:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim; he is not just one of "hundreds of thousands" of refugees and prisoners.--Kewp 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Keep', totally agree with the vizster. jamesgibbon 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly notable. -Splash^talk 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Vizjim. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim. Loganberry (Talk) 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vizjim. Mushroom 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied (again) --Doc (?) 08:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rube Chat[edit]

Non-notable forum/chat room/channel. Almost empty, almost nonsense, but not quite.Jkelly 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 02:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - nonsense / vandal - Hahnchen 02:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up. Rube chat is a community that has a life unto its own. While its roots are in MN, the fanbase is spreading. It may not be notable to those without a grasping of sports or who do not live in the Twin Cities metro area, to others it is a great source of fun and camaraderie. mech_e from Rube Chat

Speedied as patent nonsense/vandaism --Doc (?) 08:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal[edit]

Wikitionary entry ≈ jossi ≈ 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the psychology of betrayal is encycylopedic. Kappa 06:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article has just been created (9/29) and may grow into something useful, though I'm skeptical. It can be deleted later. -- Kjkolb 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article reminds me of belligerency and belligerent. Actually, belligerency was an Encyclopedia Britannica entry that was missing by the same name here. Likewise, I think Betrayal also has a lot of potential to grow, albeit in a different style and context. --Bhadani 14:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only 3 minutes passed after the article's creation before User:Jossifresco stamped an {{afd}} template on the article. Whatever happened to AfD etiquette? Adraeus 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article already goes well beyond a dicdef. It has the potential to grow into something quite useful. Denni ☯ 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like it will develop into a "psychology of betrayal" article. Actively being expanded. Jkelly 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (13 keep, 10 delete, 5 merge). I did move this article to The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston single), though. Rob e rt 22:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song)[edit]

Surely every major rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not going to get its own article. As such, delete or summerize and merge--no redirect--to an article on an album or on the singer herself. FuriousFreddy 02:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable musical recording, and it shouldn't matter whether or not it's of an old song; we have a whole category of Category:Whitney Houston singles. Also, let's move this to The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston single).--Pharos 02:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge #1 billboard single Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says it was #20. --FuriousFreddy 04:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as per Ryan Norton. There are 27 singles in Category:Whitney Houston singles and over 60 more in Category:Mariah Carey singles. I hope we aren't going to nominate them all. [edit] 02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, there are a lot of problems with this article and this one of many recordings of the song. I would support moving this to something along the lines of Recordings of "The Star-Spangled Banner" as suggested to broaden the scope of the article. [edit] 05:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable version from Whitney. OmegaWikipedia 03:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move per Pharos. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all commercial versions of the Star Spangled Banner. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I like BDAmbramson's idea. Redirect it to recordings of "The Star-Spangled Banner" or something. I would say to redirect to The Star-Spangled Banner, but that's an awfully long article already. Tuf-Kat 03:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a bad idea. Call it Notable recordings of The Star Spangled Banner .There, dicussions of all major versions of the song could be covered. Writng an article about just the Whitney Houston version seperately looks disarmingly POV. Whitney Houston could not possibly be the only artist to perform a highly notable version of the song. --FuriousFreddy 04:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is actually pretty long for a single recording, and (perhaps surprisingly) most all of it is even relevant. If the article was a little blurb I could see merging it, but this has the heft that it should stand on its own.--Pharos 04:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then edit it. An article's legnth should not make it inherently notable. I could write a 50k article on what items are inside my car and how it got there, in full prose and with footnotes, but that doesn't inherently make that article notable. --FuriousFreddy 04:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OK, this sort of thing is a bit fancruftish, but there's some consistency to having pages for all the charted singles of a popular singer. *Dan T.* 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We are in the process of setting definite guidelines for all song articles; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. But, suffice it to say that every charting song from an artist does not need an article. --FuriousFreddy 04:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [1] Wrong title. "The Star Spangled Banner" is not a "Whitney Houston song". It's a Whitney Houston recording. [2] the article claims it was for fundraising, and provides no details of any funds raised. [3] "blew the crowd away" is a bit hyperbolic for Wikipedia, no? [4] "her version is the most recognized vocal version of the song in the modern generation" is unprovable piffle. And what of Rosanne Barr's ageless rendition? Why have we no article on it? [5] "Houston had performend [sic] the song in front of nearly 100 million spectators and TV viewers at the Super Bowl" (she had actually lip-synched rather than performed.). [6] "the golden girl of the industry"? [7] "even more shocking the song could reach that high". If there's actually any important information in this "article", put it in Whitney Houston's article. - Nunh-huh 04:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever crufty flaws there may be in the current edit, the atmosphere of patriotism/jingoism surrounding the 1991 Iraq War, and this song's special place in it, makes this recording independently notable. Move, as suggested, to the better title. Xoloz 05:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is very informative. Cnwb 05:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as above. No way should every cover version of a song merit a separate article. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Star-Spangled Banner#Modern history ~~and delete~~ The majority of this article is POV fancruft and original research/essay/review—it even gives a brief explanation of Sept. 11 and the effect of it on this song—and can be cut. However, it is semi-notable in the sense of being a major modern recording of the song (though maybe not as much of one as Hendrix's, but I'm more of a Jimi fan myself) and can be noted in the relevant section of the main article. --Blackcap | talk 06:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the GFDL requires merges to be finished with a redirect. Deletion would destroy the edit history. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I hadn't thought about that. Thank you. --Blackcap | talk 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you didn't think of that. It's not true<g>. There's no reason attribution can't be given in an edit summary or on a talk page. - Nunh-huh 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but after reading WP:MM it seems like it doesn't hurt anything to have the redirect, and is simpler that having to paste the edit history into a talk page. It'd be a lot of info to put into an edit summary. --Blackcap | talk 06:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright, per User:Nunh-huhh. --Calton | Talk 07:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nunh-huh. -- Kjkolb 08:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable (also poor quality and wrongly named, but those aren't reasons for deletion). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands it's a poor article. To be merged it needs to be re-written. Marcus22 11:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nunh-huh. Al 12:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move or merge. This isn't one to delete. AndyJones 17:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Blackcap, although it shouldn't be merged in full and needs to actually have some encyclopedicity to it. -Splash^talk 20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly-content-free article on a non-notable rending of the song. --Carnildo 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable element of pop culture. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto, notable element of pop culture. Furthermore, I like this record.Hektor 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify to about three sentences and merge into Whitney Housotn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that you mean Whitney Houston? --Blackcap | talk 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can spell, I just can't type. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge and redirect). It isn't notable enough to warrant a separate article. Phronima 13:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Anittas 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album or artist, or per BD2412. Jkelly 22:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since it is a part of Houston's discography, it is still notable. Winnermario 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this version of the Star Spangled Banner is a classic that has has a large cultural impact as it has been released twice during critical periods and its profits have gone to help those in need. It is still viewed as one of the best recordings of the U.S. anthem and one of the best recordings of Whitney Houston's career, so it is very notable. It was even officially released as a single and received airplay and sold very well, charting on many Billboard charts and even topping the Hot 100 Singles Sales chart for 6 weeks. --Musicpvm 03:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and that's all that needs to be said about it. That can easily fit elsewhere. It would make absolutely no since to have seperate articles on, of all things, "The Star Spangled Banner". --FuriousFreddy 03:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that is definitely not all there is to say about. There is an entire article-worth of information to say about it as is evident when looking at the article, and I find all that information to be encyclopedic! There is no reason to delete all that information and merge this into another article and say a few lines about it when there is much more to say about it. This is currently a good, informative article. You should spend more of your time trying to expand Wikipedia articles rather than trying to get random articles with useful and encyclopedic information deleted. --Musicpvm 05:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just thought I'd point out that I've heard a handful of recordings of the Star-Spangled Banner, and Houston's is insipid and just plain terrible. And I consider myself a mild Whitney Houston fan -- this is certainly not one of the best recordings of her career! Everything else you said is a debatably acceptable reason to keep, but the quality of the recording is irrelevant as far as keeping or deleting the article. See WP:NPOV. Tuf-Kat 05:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've removed all the speculation and opinion regarding this recording, which shortened the article significantly. Once you cut out all the crap about "predominant renditions" and speculation about the "most recognized vocal version of the song in the modern generation" and why Houston did not release the song outside the US, there's not much left besides chart data. Tuf-Kat 05:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm personally not even a Whitney Houston fan, but that seemed to be the opinion among many music fans. But you are right; that is irrelevant in this discussion. --Musicpvm 05:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (12 keep, 7 delete, 4 merge). However, I did move the article to Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey recording). Rob e rt 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Article about a cover of a Diana Ross song. This song was not a hit in any country, and was not given a full release as a single. The article fails to establish any other notablility, and therefor the neccessity for a seperate article is questionable. Not even the orignal song has enough information availabel on it to honestly have its own article (this article was in fact written first, with only passing mention to the more notable original). The original version had a stub article which I have now merged and redirected to Mahogany (1975 film), where it reads better (well, at least I am trying to redirect it, although OmegaWikipedia seems intent on reverting the redirection, for unexplained reasons). Suggest a redirect for this article to the album, with summarization of article text. If and when someone wants to write one article about the composition and any notable recorded versions of it, and has enough information and established notablility to do so, it can be done. FuriousFreddy 01:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey's version of Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) is far from a promotional recording. It was meant to be a full single, but there's a whole story behind it on why it got cancelled due to conflicts with other artists and with record labels. That's notability right there. If you merge or delete the article, thast information that will get lost. One article per song doesnt' look good. And in a prior attempt to merge songs over another article, most people commented that it did not look good OmegaWikipedia 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Singles get cancelled all the time. A single getting cancelled because of record-label politics does not establish notability. An article on this recording is overkill, a paragraph on an album article is more than enough. --FuriousFreddy 21:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whereas I believe singles should have a place on wiki, I don't think promo recordings do. - Hahnchen 02:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is far from a promo recording. Please get your facts right OmegaWikipedia 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album, as per WP:ALBUM. Jkelly 03:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? Joaquin Murietta 07:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; it's essentially fan-cruft. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a merge, but Delete because otherwise my vote will be counted as a keep by some people. --fvw * 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. History provided by Omega above does not establish notability. One or two sentences could be merged to artist's article if not already there. Barno 15:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very rewarding article. This level of coverage is one of wikipedia's strengths. Kappa 16:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey recording) as Mariah didn't write this, only recorded it. Un focused 17:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kappa that this level of coverage is a strength of Wikipedia. I could understand the urge to merge this one, but the album article would be way too long that way. Keep where it is, or move and keep per Unfocused (I don't care much where it is, so long as it stays and doesn't clutter the main album article). --Jacquelyn Marie 21:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If doing so would cause a consensus to be formed, this may also be interpreted as a "delete" or "redirect". --Carnildo 21:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You will not be removing this article. It may fail to deliver much information, but it is still a part of the Mariah Carey discography. Winnermario 22:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But "part of the Mariah Carey discography" isn't grounds for keeping an article in Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Winnermario, your tone is improper and unappreciated. --FuriousFreddy 01:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate his tone. --Anittas 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Anittas 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonexistant recording. Winnermario, watch your Wikiquette. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Musicpvm 07:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Number 1's (Mariah Carey album), per Jkelly. Extraordinary Machine 11:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect. Not notable enough to have a separate article. Phronima 13:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was released as a single and had remixes. We have articles about all Mariah singles. It would mess up their chronology if this article were deleted. Alensha 15:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It would mess up their chronology if this article were deleted." How? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's an infobox in the singles' articles. Each of them links to the previous single and the next single. It would look odd if it linked to the article of an album or different song, ad those couldn't include the singles' infobox. Alensha 11:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to the single's album easily solves that problem. It also ads the benefit of a ombined album/single chronology. --FuriousFreddy 14:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with album article. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : Mariah's singles are an important part of knowing the work she has accomplished throughout the years. Why delete this page? What have we got to lose? I think that having the most information as possible about a singer, like Mariah Carey in this case, should be keeped if possible. I suggest to build a Mariah page and Diana Ross page of the both songs and put links between each other!Mczelda 04:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This user's fifteenth edit, of which three have been to (Mariah Carey) articles and five to other AfDs on Carey sngles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Everyking 07:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Individual recordings of songs are intrinsically non-notable. Susvolans ⇔ 16:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not request for deletion just because you do not like an artist. DrippingInk 20:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WHere do people get the idea that I nominated this because I supposedly don't like Mariah Carey? --FuriousFreddy 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has too much text to be merged anywhere. "The song" section could be in the article about the original song, though. You could describe in this article instead, how the version differs from the original recording. I believe that all singles by notable artists or bands are notable, and the articles about them should be kept, if they have enough text. -Hapsiainen 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A bloated article does not neccessitate a merge. --FuriousFreddy 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the article has enough substance, and I couldn't find any bloat. (I counted and classified the paragraphs in my head before I made my vote.) You can judge from my comment that I at least read the article caryfully, otherwise I couldn't have offerred detailed ideas about its further development. -Hapsiainen 14:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by JoJan --Doc (?) 08:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Medical[edit]

Delete as this is link spam and non-encyclopedic. [edit] 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as A3 JoJan 05:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JoJan- the spammer kept removing the speedy tag so I listed it for deletion here instead. [edit] 05:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of shock sites. Rob e rt 23:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meatspin[edit]

Non-notable shock site, description already merged to list of shock sites. Almost WP:CSD A3. Ilmari Karonen 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD tag was removed from this page by 67.80.77.53. I put it back. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to said list or an article about shock sites in general. Usrnme h8er 08:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and description as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of shock sites. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect, this might just about be searched for so at least a redirect will help prevent standalone recreation. -Splash^talk 20:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect per Splash. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Splash, to hopefully keep it from being recreated. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Amren ^(talk) 00:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lim_Peh_Oh[edit]

This article is non-verifiable, with no credible references provided. Very likely false. 203.163.111.98 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly false. The supposed "real name" of Lim Peh Oh, "胡一刀", is actually a fictional character from one of Jinyong's wuxia novels. Googling "Lim Peh Oh -wikipedia" gives nothing meaningful whatsoever. -- ran (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Vsion 07:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite obviously false.--Huaiwei 16:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity & hoax. *drew 15:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Zen Master[edit]

Why are people putting up articles on webcomics even though they have no assertion of notability whatsoever? Alexa ranks it at over 600k and that's the main site, this comic leads off it! It's only been online since March this year, and Google search shows nothing to assert its notability. [6] [7]. We should be transwiking things over from comixPedia when comics achieve notability, not the other way round. - Hahnchen 02:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. 56 unique google hits. --TM ^(talk) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Comixpedia per nom. Ilmari Karonen 00:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards merge. Discounting sockpuppets, there are 10 keep, 5 delete, and 10 merge votes. While merging this article was more strongly requested than, say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song), I do not think there is enough agreement on what action should be taken. I did, however, move this article to Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey single). Rob e rt 23:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Santa Claus is Coming to Town, just a short mention will do. - Hahnchen 02:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OmegaWikipedia 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Hahnchen. Jkelly 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate. Please think of the real users, not just random article surfers. Kappa 06:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the album it's on. Failing that, delete. Not notable enough to stand as a separate article. Jonathunder 07:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. Non-notable on its own. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significance for real users who know WP is an encyclopedia and not an exhaustive music guide. Barno 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Hahnchen. If the song had already been released, and there were more information about it, I might have been inclined to issue a weak keep, but it's too early for that. Maybe at some point that section of Santa Claus is Coming to Town will merit creating an article of its own. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per User:Hahnchen. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyking 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Santa Claus is Coming to Town, per Hahnchen. Extraordinary Machine 11:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -- not notable enough to warrant separate article. Phronima 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above merge votes. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This will be released as a single. If this one gets deleted, then delete this and this too. Alensha 15:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Friday (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A part of Carey's official discography. --64.231.67.213 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same as above. Winnermario 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright or merge. You have got to be kidding. Pop-music-cruft. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Mariah's singles are an important part of knowing the work she has accomplished throughout the years. Why delete this page? What have we got to lose? I think that having the most information as possible about a singer, like Mariah Carey in this case, should be keeped if possible.Mczelda 04:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This user's thirteenth edit; of the previous twelve, three were to articles, three to another AfD on a Carey single. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Anittas 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Musicpvm 19:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Santa Claus is Coming to Town, per Hahnchen. -- DS1953 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Individual recordings of songs are intrinsically non-notable. Susvolans ⇔ 15:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not request for deletion just because you do not like an artist. DrippingInk 20:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep this article.

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, there were 9 keep, 3 delete, and 8 merge votes. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song), I do not think there is enough consensus on what action should be taken. However, I did move the article to O Holy Night (Mariah Carey single). Rob e rt 23:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with O Holy Night, or the Mariah Carey Christmas album. Jkelly 03:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But this really shouldnt be here. It was already put on the VFD before and it survived. OmegaWikipedia 04:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Last VfD ended in "No consensus". You can renominate such articles a second time. By the way, I suggest a merge to the Mariah Carey article, with a mention at the O Holy Night article. --FuriousFreddy 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous arguments. Kappa 06:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the album it's on. Failing that, delete. Not notable enough to stand as a separate article. Jonathunder 07:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with O Holy Night Joaquin Murietta 07:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, individual songs have to be exceptional to justify their own article. I would suggest adding this information to the albums in the future. -- Kjkolb 08:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote merge and redirect for this one. Again, might have voted for weak keep if the infobox wasn't half of the article. Need more content and/or notability for me to change my vote. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyking 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with O Holy Night. Extraordinary Machine 11:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it was released as a single. Would you nominate other singles' articles for deletion? Alensha 11:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ...if they didn't make siome sort of important impact to warrant writingg an encyclopedia article about them, yes. And especially if they are covers of Christmas standards. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Friday (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright or merge. Pop-music-cruft. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : Mariah's singles are an important part of knowing the work she has accomplished throughout the years. Why delete this page? What have we got to lose? I think that having the most information as possible about a singer, like Mariah Carey in this case, should be keeped if possible.Mczelda 04:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is all of two paragraphs long. It could easily be merged into either O Holy Night or Merry Christmas (album). Extraordinary Machine 20:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an official single release by Mariah Carey, and is part of her discography. It will be kept. Winnermario 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It will have done whatever should be done with it. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Anittas 21:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Musicpvm 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. The article as it stands will easily merge int othe article on its proper album. As this is a Christmas song, with likely dozens of succesful covers over the years, it does not stand to reason to retain it as a seperate article. --FuriousFreddy 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with O Holy Night. -- DS1953 02:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Individual recordings of songs are intrinsically non-notable. Susvolans ⇔ 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not request for deletion just because you do not like an artist. DrippingInk 20:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Who here is requesting for deletion because they don't like Mariah Carey? Certainly not I; serveral of her songs are among my favorites, and she is a great singer. This nomination has nothing to do with whether or not I like the singer or not; it has to do with the neccessity for an article. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carey's version of "O Holy Night" is notable.
- Previous unsigned comment is by User:WScott. It is also his seventh edit. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zededarian[edit]

Vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Alhutch 18:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 21:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Hollins[edit]

Fails the criteria for an appropriate actor bio: no media features, fan base, independent bio, name recog, or commercial endorsements. Ziggurat 02:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDB-verified. IMDB entry shows many TV appaearances and a movie appearance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he is listed as making guest appearances in Hollyoaks on IMDB, he is definitely now a regular cast member and should now probably be listed as such on IMDB. I've padded out the article a little but as he is now a regular cast member on a popular TV show, he meets the criteria to have an article as Hollyoaks is seen by a relatively large audience every day. Candice 12:50 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 23:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frycookonvenus[edit]

nn quote from movie, and advertisement for web site based on it. — brighterorange (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anville 11:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising--Alhutch 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft mixed in with advertising. Excellent for dinner, but better with a sprinkling of nn-bio on top. Pity. Can't have everything, I suppose. -Splash^talk 20:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. You're quite witty, Splash. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 21:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Splah's recipe. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pie2k[edit]

A webcomic with found here with no alexa rank. A google search shows for pie2k shows about 3 links regarding this comic, and the rest were irrelevent. For the creator of this article, please take a look at comixPedia, a wiki for comics. - Hahnchen 02:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, meant to do the AfD also on this. Same reasons as the nom. feydey 09:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Comixpedia per nom. Ilmari Karonen 00:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete since it was an attack page. Zach (Sound Off) 02:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 4[edit]

A crystal ball. A really, really, poor crystal ball. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Personally as a fan for me the buck stops at T2. As a Wikipedian, an article on this movie should not be too speculative, and should not be written until valid confirmation of basic story, cast and shooting/release dates is given Dessydes

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (4 keep, 18 delete) Rob e rt 23:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in movie trailers that are not in the movie[edit]

This nomination was not completed; listing now. Flower party■ 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think this list is even "important" enough to be in an encyclopedia. I don't think that anyone would ever go looking for th is information and go "wow that's interesting", but I could be wrong. But I just think the list is pretty pointless. Private Butcher 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for what I said above, I think it should be deleted. Private Butcher 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people think special song trivia is interesting. --SuperDude 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting," but unencyclopedic. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic, ambigious criteria. Xoloz 05:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because Wikipedia is text-based is no reason to have a text-based bias. Joaquin Murietta 07:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? WP has plenty of articles on non-text things, including many songs, and these interesting creatures called humans, which are not text. It is, however, a requirement (not a bias) that things with articles here be encyclopedic, which many hold this isn't. Xoloz 08:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether it's common to use songs not in the movie on the trailer. If it is the list could be endless. Otherwise, it may actually be informative. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, as Average Earthman notes. I can't tell you how many movie trailers I've seen featuring a song by Enya or featuring O Fortuna from Carmina Burana. Al 12:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is actually very common, so the list will be very long. The soundtrack is often the last thing to be fixed in a film, often after the publicity machine has started, which is why trailers often have the theme tunes from completely different films. Average Earthman 09:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable; it seems every trailer produced these days features a song not on the soundtrack. android 79 12:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable (Al is correct, for example), fails WP:Importance. Please consider joining the centralized discussion about "Lists of songs". Barno 15:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic: a fairly random happenstance. -Splash^talk 20:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Agamemnon2 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So many movie trailers do this, it could almost be List of movie trailers. --Carnildo 21:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I sure would be interested in an article about why/how this phenomenon happens, with perhaps a few notable singles from soundtracks that were never in movies. As a list, for the reasons many people listed above, it just won't do. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It happens because soundtracks are the last thing to be added to a film (if the making of the film extras are to be trusted). The music isn't finalised when the trailer is released, so they add appropriate music instead. I think. Oh, and delete. Sabine's Sunbird 23:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amren ^(talk) 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. MCB 00:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable. Extraordinary Machine 11:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it interesting. It contains facts. Wikipedia does not have paper restictions-- Nick Dillinger 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have found this article informative. —Pengo 12:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it's a trivial non-article. The Literate Engineer 02:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I'll add a merge tag or two, though. -Splash^talk 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of hidden tracks[edit]

There are thousands of hidden tracks.

Delete. Unmaintainable list. --SuperDude 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this is kept, it will grow at a faster rate than Skynet. I can personally add a crapload on right now, and so can pretty much anyone. - ~~83.151.204.235 04:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Hahnchen 15:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC) login must have expired [reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 06:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,I agree that Wikipedia is not paper. Joaquin Murietta 07:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, having the tracks listed on the album's article is sufficient. Also, we must keep Wikipedia from becoming self-aware as per 83.151.204.235. -- Kjkolb 08:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Average Earthman 09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the hidden-track craze is important to music history and should be documented...but we also have an article List of albums containing a hidden track which covers much the same territory. Ideally I'd say that article should be merged into this one, but vice versa would be okay too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The craze for personalised number plates is important to the history of car ownership too, but it doesn't mean we should list every single one of them; an overview article with some notable examples would be more than enough. If some way could be found of sifting out only those hidden tracks which had been notable in themselves that might be different, but I can't see how that could be done. In any case, that would fit better in the article Andrew/Starblind mentioned above. Loganberry (Talk) 11:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that it's unmaintainable; true, it's an incomplete and open-ended list but it can be added to (and so improved) over time. All the same, I agree that there would seem to be a need for some criteria as to which tracks are included if there really are thousands of them. Marcus22 11:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The more interesting ones can go in Hidden tracks. Reconsider if and when the number is so large that the size of the Hidden tracks article becomes unwieldy. What is the case for saying that someone looking for information on hidden tracks is going to type in "List of hidden tracks" rather than "hidden tracks," or that the search feature and/or Google will be any more effective in finding them if they are in a separate article? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hidden track or Keep if the resulting article would be too unwieldy. This satisfies my main criterion for lists, which is that the list must add value in some way to an existing Wikipedia article. This is a useful supplement to Hidden track, which describes a salient and established practice in pop music. android 79 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DPBSmith, or merge the most noteworthy examples into Hidden track or List of albums containing a hidden track. Uncompleteable. Barno 15:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep First, Wikipedia is not paper. Second, any item on this list can easily be verified. Third, I would say a list like this can add value to other articles, as mentioned above. Roodog2k (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to keep up with, and also somewhat paradoxical per title name(unless we rename it to "formerly hidden tracks now found on Wikipedia") Karmafist 21:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge mentions of some of the more notable songs into Hidden track. we don't need them all, though. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per 79. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete this entirely as an unmaintainable, unencyclopedic list. MCB 00:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as destination for link from Hidden track. Denni ☯ 02:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find Andrew Lenahan - Starblind's reasoning persuasive. Rx StrangeLove 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of albums containing a hidden track. -Sean Curtin 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with reasons provided by Dpbsmith. Carbonite | Talk 16:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles. Grue 16:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 23:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philliesphans.com[edit]

Non-notable fansite. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is promotional, links already mentioned on Philadelphia Phillies. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This is the best phan site in the history of phandom. To delete a Philadelphia fan website would be yet another blow in a long sorry history of Philliephandom. It is OK with me if you delete the Phillies web site, if that violates some Wiki rules. If given a chance this page will grow into a source of baseball knowledge and philadelphia phandom knowledge.joboggi Sept 30, 2005

Above comment by anonymous user User:208.59.165.121, who has three edits, all involving this article and this AFD page. Ral 315 W_S 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with Mgm. From the stub: "With WilliamC as the catalyst of great posters and analysis this site has come a long way from its beginning." Too bad that's not true for the nominated WP page. Barno 15:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above- site is non-notable in Wikipedia terms. Ral 315 W_S 15:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhile this is indeed a fan site, it is unique from other fan sites in the way it is organized and maintained. This is the kind of thing that should be preserved for posterity.
Delete per MGM. Can't say the "unsigned" voters are helping their case much, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Keep it. You will feel better about yourself.

Deletion makes me feel like a big man. Delete as a non-notable and unremarkable fansite. Lord Bob 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I came across this page today and I find it very valuable. I get to see how phillies fans think on a real board.

Keep-I originally said delete, but finding now that there is an entry for "Sons of Sam Horn" I've changed my opinion. The entry will be upgraded in terms of appearance and content shortly, if it is not deleted, by board members. I have no idea why "Sons" should be notable, but "philliesphans" wouild be non-notable. Is is a Red Sox vs. Phillies thing, or does it have to do with the entry itself? --phillychuck, a moderator of said site.

Keep- and it seems the majority here agrees.

Just a note that the forum does have a topic about the Wikipedia article and its AfD status, and though they, to their credit, don't seem to be calling out the vote on this, I think it's safe to say that the majority if not the entirety of this collection of anonys are simply forum members sticking up for their board. Lord Bob 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that, and think it's worth mentioning that they do seem to be fairly mature about it, which is better than a number of forum-based stuff that's been deleted in the past. The post by "donmoney" is particularly good and quite reasonable about the whole thing. For anyone coming here from the forum, I'd like to point out that ( 1 ) we're voting about the topic, not the article... it isn't a matter of making it bigger, or adding pictures, or anything like that ( 2 ) votes from new or anonymous users generally aren't counted, and a whole lot of them tends to make the article look bad and thus less likely to be kept. Feel free to comment and add to the discussion though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I initiated the AfD, I'd like to second Starblind's note on how they are handeling it. Props. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mgm. Nice to see some new users around, though. -Splash^talk 20:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, Son of Sam Horn warrants a page. If you take a look at the site it is as good as any, and certainly as good as Son of Sam Horn. The discussion of sabremetrics demystifies these stats for many uninformed phans. The folks posting are generally professionals. donmoney being a lawyer, PC is in stats and so on. As with Son of Sam Horn the contacts that post on the site often scoop the media on Phillies information. The site is not commercial in any way, contrary to a note at the top of the page. joboggi

Delete, delete, delete. This group makes baseball sound so dry and empty. Lacking in passion and color. Their use of stats is pointed out as a reason to be allowed on wiki. Their gross overuse of stats sucks all the life out of this passionate game. This is not an attempt at serious archiving but in advertising this site. Delete.

Let me add a comment--we have no need nor desire to advertise the board broadly (or narrowly). We want quality of content, not quantity, and we do not run a single advertisement, nor make a single cent profit from any poster. The site is entirely privately funded by the founder, and has never accepted a donation nor solicited support of any kind. If one is a phillies fan (or likes to discuss politics or philosophy), sure, we'd love to have you come by occasionally. My feeling still is that SOSH, though a bit more prominent nationally, is a perfect precedent for this decision (wiki mgmt may not know that this board was notable in the fight by private fan boards to stop MLB from shutting down private fan sites, was written up in the Phila. Inquirer for this, and participated materially in getting the Phils to acknowledge (again with help from the Inky) that they had mis-measured the dimensions of Citizen Bank Park, and was active in helping to apprehend and convict a noted internet criminal). Regarding the use of stats on the board and making baseball "dry"--that's a joke. We just want people who make assertions ("Bobby Abreu stinks") to support their position with some reasoned arguments, which, in baseball, often leads to the use of stats. The part of the stats FAQ posted in the article is an attempt to HELP users unfamiliar with sabermetric stats decipher posts from users who employ them, nothing more. --phillychuck again

Delete. nn website. Now I feel better. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, management weighed in when the site was two lines of joke material. In the baseball world, this site is very well respected as noted in PCs message above. joboggi

KEEP- you elitist snobs, there are some websites that are listed on here that if they are here so should this.

KEEP-DISCO STU

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Even if I discount Joaquin Murietta as they'd only been here one day, and lump all the deletes and merges together, I'm still not satisified there is a consensus on what to do. -Splash^talk 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bengbu Public Security Bureau[edit]

non notable article by a user with a history of trying to push his agenda. Wikipedia is not a forum for propaganda.

Delete for the above reasons. 152.163.101.6
Delete Non-notable article with the main purpose of being a propaganda piece. Abstrakt 05:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It obviously is notable as it has power of many thousands of people.

Sarcelles 22:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand, obviously notable but needs more text and perhaps some sources cited if possible. Piecraft 15:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reopening this poll because it was closed prematurely, before everyone with an opinion about this matter has expressed his/her views. As such, there is no consensus on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Nor do I think that the situation has been sufficiently explained. Here are three reasons why this article should be deleted:
1. Precedents. Sarcelles has previously created 4 similar articles: Changchun Public Security Bureau, Tangshan Public Security Bureau, Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau, Lu'an Public Security Bureau. None of those survived VfD, because they were deemed non-notable and POV. It makes little sense for this to be kept.
2. POV. Sarcelles has a history of starting purely POV articles for the sake of pushing his agenda. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chinese cities for a detailed account of his actions starting from mid-May. Three Wikipedians (User:Abstrakt, User:Miborovsky, and I) are currently considering an RfC or even RfA against him if the situation does not improve quickly, because we are sick and tired of chasing after literally hundreds of his edits, de-POVizing when we can and VfD'ing when his creations are unsalvageable. This article is an example of that.
3. Non-notable. There are 300+ prefectures or equivalents in China, Bengbu being one of them. Bengbu itself is an unremarkable city in Anhui province. Its public security bureau is, in turn, one of dozens of bureaus in its bureaucracy. There is absolutely nothing sufficiently remarkable about it to warrant an article at this point in time. The same goes for the other 4 articles that were already deleted.
As such, this article should be deleted. -- ran (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw Sarcelles Falun Gong pushing articles earlier. Should be deleted. It's not like its as notable as a primary school is it? Maybe it should be in mentioned or listified in some sort of Police Hierarchy in China article - Hahnchen 02:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be merged into a bigger article until it needs breaking out, but none of the reasons given here for not even mentioning it is actually compelling. Number of entities is absolutely not a good criterion for deletion. There are how many species on this planet? Grace Note 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where should this article be merged to? Which sentence of this article, except the last one, even provides unique and encyclopedic information? The police department of Bengbu is located in Bengbu, and is in charge of the polic there... and it has detention centers! The last sentence is unique and encyclopedic, but there's already an article on the dissident; we don't need a 2nd article just to say who detained him.

As such, there isn't even anything here to merge into any other articles. This article should be deleted outright. -- ran (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly there is little information other than the location and that it is a government office handling policing. Until I can see a better reason for keeping this article, my vote is unchanged. Delete Abstrakt
Keep, since we can say something specific about this particular PSB. Anyone researching it would not appreciate being redirected to Zhang Lin. Kappa 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could also say something about my neighbourhood police kiosk, how it arrested 2 students for drinking and driving... Notable? I think not. The chance of someone researching is, as much as the chance that someone would be researching the above-stated kiosk. --Mib orovsky

07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a prefecture branch of the PSB bears any comparison to a local police kiosk, nor does arresting an internationally known dissent compare with arresting students for drinking and driving. Kappa

Well how an internationally known athlete? How about I start an article on the police station whose officers arrested Micheal Phelps for drunk driving?

If you are an expert than feel free to give us tips on how to expand. Like ran and Mib have already pointed out, there isn't anything else in this article to expand upon. And I'm opposed to the idea of merging this information into the Bengbu article because that would be doing what Sarcelles once did, and that was making assinine edits on Chinese city article to make the main focus about prisons and police. Abstrakt 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone researching it would not appreciate being redirected to Zhang Lin. — Then this researcher would find out absolutely no new info about the Bengbu PSB from this article.

Look, if you guys want to start a WikiProject to describe every single bureau of every single prefecture and county in China (~50 x ~5000 = 250000 new articles), then please go ahead. If I can start, say, Hulan County Forestry Department or Haidong Prefecture Education Bureau, and write a useless subsubstub article that goes "The Haidong Prefecture Education Bureau is located in Haidong, Qinghai, and is in charge of education there. [end]", and get away with it, then please keep this article too. But until you decide to do that, this article should be deleted. Unless, of course, if you support Sarcelles' agenda of POV-pushing that he has engaged in for over four months. -- ran (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ran. Article creator is unreliable and this is a high risk to wikipedia's credibility. --Vsion 07:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per ran. --Mib orovsky 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful. Joaquin Murietta 07:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In what ways? Please tell me ONE piece of unbiased, factual knowledge you gained from this article, besides that there's a Public Security Bureau in Bengbu. --Miborovsky 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Zhang Lin is detained there.--Nicodemus75 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could have learned that from the Zhang Lin article. Are we going to start articles on Zhang Lin's hospital-of-birth and grade school as well? Perhaps the officers who arrested him? The sites where he was posting? How about his place of residence?
    - Is Zhang Lin the only piece of unique and useful information in the article? If so, then it should be deleted.-- ran (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a neutral version into Bengbu and redirect. -- Kjkolb 08:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public Security Bureaus in the PRC are inherently notable government institutions.--Nicodemus75 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they? Perhaps I should start an article on Lacey, WA Department of Motor Vehicles? In case you can't catch it, Public Security Bureaus are notable institutions, as is the DMV. But individual ones are not. --Mib orovsky 22:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the Bengbu PSB more notable than the dozens of other bureaus at the same level run by the government of Bengbu? Should we start articles on the Bengbu Education Bureau or the Bengbu Agriculture Bureau? And how are these dozens of bureaus in Bengbu more notable than literally hundreds of thousands of parallel bureaus run across the prefectures and counties of China? -- ran (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above by Kjkolb. Ciraric 20:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce in Washington State[edit]

WP:NOT a howto. — brighterorange (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above.--KJPurscell 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joaquin Murietta 07:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Alhutch 18:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but there must be an article on divorce law in the US that I can't manage to find: it could be redir/merged there as appropriate. -Splash^talk 21:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PETITION FOR DELETION asforewith hereuntoith previously stated, noteworthy content herein contained in Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia (hencefore referred to as Wikipedia), please reference WP:NOT Section 1 Subsection 10 Paragraph 1 explicitly and implicity states "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things." As per said referenced text, this article is in violation of said rules, on the grounds of providing legal advise and should deleted presently. Roodog2k (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm glad to learn how to divorce someone in my own state, but still useless. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SUMMONS I hereby summons an admin to close this AfD. They will be given 96 hours time. You have been served. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep), but possibly a copyvio, so I listed the page on WP:CP. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mater Hades[edit]

Actually, I can't make sense of it, but it is like a project-born-of-band-vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google shows that they have been reviewed. But it is a copyvio of their defunct web page, as shown by This Google cache. Jkelly 03:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, then. Ilmari Karonen 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be cleaned up OmegaWikipedia 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Android79. -Splash^talk 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxtreme[edit]

"gfxtreme is a cool forum / website," but WP:NOT a web directory, even for cool sites. — brighterorange (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. Nateji77 04:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an A1, almost an A3. So tagged. Delete it slowly if that doesn't work. Friday (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, there were 7 keep, 4 delete, and 7 merge votes. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song), I do not believe there is enough consensus as to what action should be taken. However, I did move the article to Joy to the World (Mariah Carey single). Rob e rt 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all commercial versions of Joy to the World to a single article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Mariah Carey's version of the song is a combination of the Christmas song and the 3 Dog Night song. It also a lot of detail on its remixes and music video that would be lost if the article were merged. OmegaWikipedia 03:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Amount of detail does not warrant keeping an unneccessary article. If information is desired to be kept, merge it to the article on the album. --FuriousFreddy 03:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to original album, as per WP:ALBUM. Jkelly 03:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Omegawikipedian, merging would be bloat. Kappa 06:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, keeping a whole page of artist bio for each of many non-notable Christmas-song covers that didn't even make the charts would be bloat. Delete or merge to the not-very-notable album it's on, per WP:MUSIC. Barno 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Barno, the song did indeed in chart in Australia and the USA dance chart OmegaWikipedia 15:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Kappa, as much as admire your tenacity for sticking it out on some tough ones around here, I think Barno is (mostly) right on this one. Merge. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the album it's on. Failing that, delete. Not notable enough to stand as a separate article. Jonathunder 07:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathunder, what's the deal with your signature? I've added your name to your votes twice now. It's just listing the time you voted. Thanks -- Kjkolb 09:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album. -- Kjkolb 08:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect; not notable enough for separate article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with album. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyking 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Merry Christmas (album). Extraordinary Machine 11:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- not notable enough to warrant a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phronima (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 October 2005
Keep. It was released as a single, had several remixes and a video. We have articles about all Mariah singles. It would mess up their chronology if this article were deleted. Alensha 15:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album. The article on the song could also mention this version, if it's relevant. Friday (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As part of her discography, and is still a single release by Carey. Winnermario 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright or merge. Pop-music-cruft. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : Mariah's singles are an important part of knowing the work she has accomplished throughout the years. Why delete this page? What have we got to lose? I think that having the most information as possible about a singer, like Mariah Carey in this case, should be keeped if possible.Mczelda 04:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This user's fourteenth edit, of which three have been to (Mariah Carey) articles, and four to other AfDs on Carey singles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What we have to lose via untrammeled Careyology is database bloat and resulting server sluggishness and downtime. -- Hoary 14:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now cut some terminally trivial stuff -- example: The remix is noted for being only the third resung dance remix in her career (and her second resung remix with Morales). However, due to the limited release of the single, "Fantasy is often seen as the second effort between Carey and Morales. -- and more could be cut besides, risking the discomfiture of only a small number of people, who anyway would really be better off on a fansite. What's left after more trimming should be merged with a single article on this song. -- Hoary 14:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Anittas 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Musicpvm 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Individual recordings of songs are intrinsically non-notable. Susvolans ⇔ 15:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not request for deletion just because you do not like an artist. DrippingInk 20:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, who here is requesting for deletion because they don't like Mariah Carey? Certainly not I; serveral of her songs are among my favorites, and she is a great singer. This nomination has nothing to do with whether or not I like the singer or not; it has to do with the neccessity for an article. Don't assume bad faith in AfD nominations. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song is an important Mariah Carey single.
- Previous unsigned comment is by User:WScott. It is also his sixth edit. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP and MERGE. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pump It[edit]

Apparently a charting album track from the Black Eyed Peas. Fails to establish notability (a record being a charting single does not make it inherently notable, especially since it was not a hit. I would speedy megre to the relevant album, but I wanted a consensus first. FuriousFreddy 02:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per WP:ALBUM. Jkelly 03:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable to note singles which were available to chart without promotion. OmegaWikipedia 03:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- No, it's not. Thousands of songs have charted; that does not make them inherently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia as spereate articles. Not even the All Music Guide does that. Besides, the record charted far below number forty: are you saying that every song by every artist that ever charted deserves an article for that reason and that reason alone? Such a suggestion would be highly irrational. The article is all of about four sentence, merge it in bulk to the article on the album and discuss the fact taht the album track charted there. I'm sure the album article isn't nearly long enough to prevent such an addition.--FuriousFreddy 03:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of songs chart each day? Um, no they don't Freddy. The Billboard Hot 100 is only made out of 100 positions. Most of the songs that chart have been promoted. It's rare to find songs that dont chart break in. Please stop twisting the facts. OmegaWikipedia 04:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That isn't quite how I meant to word that, and I apoligize (and edited). Reworded, it makes sense. Fact of the matter is: every charting Hot 100 song is not deserving of an article, and just because a song is promoted does not make it notable. --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's more charts than just Billboard Hot 100 (outside the US for example) and all of them chart songs. So thousands may well be accurate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monkey Business (album). --bainer (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, charting singles are more notable than albums. Kappa 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? --FuriousFreddy 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because generally albums have no individual indentity. Kappa 23:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - What albums have you been listening to? Most record companies push singles so that they can sell albums. Albums having no individual identity applies primarily to older albums and compilations. --FuriousFreddy 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monkey Business (album). It's... Thelb4! 07:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per FuriousFreddy. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep single. I also dislike the notion that a single must be a "hit" to get an article. A hit from whose viewpoint? For one thing, this song was fairly successful, and is from a major album by a major artist. If it was a garage-band CD-R passed around by some kid in high school, my vote would obviously be different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is all of a few sentences long, and would fit very neatly into the album article, which is also (lists aside) very short. --FuriousFreddy 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep, except there's not enough there worth keeping (yet?). So merge unless/until a lot more information makes it worth it to have its own article. I do not, however, agree that being a single is not enough to establish notability. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are far too many singles for each one to be notable just because it is a single. What can be said about most songs other than providing catalogue information on release dates, chart performances, and recording studio anecdotes. A single, something that is inherently trivial in the grand scope of an encyclopedia, needs to have some sort of importance or impact other than its general existence and chart performance to warrant having its own article. --FuriousFreddy 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I can concede some of the arguments you list, but I still think a charting single would be notable because enough people noticed it for it to chart. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...but when an article on a song reads simply like a catalogue listing (name, release date, label, sales, chart performance) is there a reason for a seperate article? Even an article with an expanded version of this inforamton is arbitrary. Articles are required to establish notability; saying that every charting single should be listed is like saying every book that charted on the Amazon sales list needs an article as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...whole point of Wikipedia is to have others add stuff to it, to make it more than a catalogue, no? And... all encyclopedias are arbitrary. They often don't contain information I think is important. (They may include things you don't think are important, or not include things you think are important.) Physical ones are limited by paper. Wikipedia is not. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        But Wikipedia articles should only be on notable sunjects. What makes this song more notable than your average song. Thousands of songs have reached the Top 100, and the very idea that they all deserve articles for that reason is absolutely ridiculous. This project is going to de-evolve into a fan-gushing vehicle with no semblance of credibility as a scholalry reference. --FuriousFreddy 20:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the album, nn single. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monkey Business (album), per nominator. Extraordinary Machine 11:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it, whats wrong with having a page for this song? 217.34.35.180 19:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge—to me whether it had an official single release or not is academic. The point is it charted, indicating a significant degree of popularity. Everyking 07:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a hit, eh, FuriousFreddy? What, have you been living in a hole? The song climbed to the top-five in the United States. Winnermario 02:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back what I said about the song climbing to the top-five, as I confused the track with "My Humps". I apologize to Furious Freddy, but as the song still charted, I still vote keep. Winnermario 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a notable track as it charted on the Hot 100. Even though you personally may not find it notable, many other people would. I think the fact that a song charted or was released makes it notable enough to have its own article. This is not just an article about some random track but one by a very popular group from one of the best selling albums of 2005 which received decent play at different radio formats and at clubs. The song was also featured in a very popular TV commercial. --Musicpvm 03:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Millions (or atl east hundreds of thosuands) of songs have been charted and/or relased over the years in various countries. There needs to be more discernemnt than that. I dont nominate articles for deletion because I personally do not find them notable; I do it when I find articles that do not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability. The album's article is very short; a simple merge would make one article better instead of keeping two stubs around. --FuriousFreddy 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to 1943 Naples post office bombing which has already been discussed here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An explosion at the Naples post office kills 100 people. The explosion was caused by a Nazi time bomb placed there 6 days beforehand.. -- RHaworth 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naples post office explosion[edit]

del. Nonnotabel event in the context. We are not going to have an article for every newspaper article, are we? mikka (t) 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a pretty notable event to me. How many times in history have retreating soldiers left behind a massive time-bomb that killed 100 people?--Pharos 04:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty many times at the end of WW2. Nazis mined quite a few towns for demolition. That's why I put it on VfD: one case of many. mikka (t) 05:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How many comparable incidents could you name where a time bomb killed so many unexpectably after the German units had already left? Is it more than a handful?--Pharos 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. This was already on AfD with a title that almost told the entire news story. This is a much better title but needs rewritting not to read like a news item. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- On AfD where? mikka (t) 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a rewrite unrelated to the previous AfD/VfD, either that, or someone deleted a redirect by mistake. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. It's... Thelb4! 07:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. CalJW 09:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in film[edit]

Another foggy crystal ball. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- W P Talk 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball. Gazpacho 03:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Untitled Lucas/Spielberg/Grazer Project (2010 film)" seals it for me. Nateji77 04:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --FuriousFreddy 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 4 years in advance there's no certainty any of these will be made and released. Films are not announced yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All red links apart from Robots 2, which says in the article it's coming next year (it isn't, the producers are only 'thinking of a sequal', no actor has been signed yet, and it shouldn't have an article either). Average Earthman 09:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010: Odyssey Two. Anything else would simply be crystal ball gazing. Grutness...wha? 12:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't jump the gun on the redirect. The title could still be used as a serious encyclopedia article - for instance, an article about the depiction of the year 2010 in various films, or, five years from now, as an article about that years slate of motion picture releases. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can always be "un-redirected" later when the title is needed for something else. That happens quite a lot. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article-creation vanity. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No evidence provided that the preparation for these films is of great importance in 2005. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per... everyone. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too far in the future Amren ^(talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Extraordinary Machine 11:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much too far in the future to be of any use. Carbonite | Talk 16:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblesnap chess[edit]

hoax/OR, apparently deleted/bjaodn'd before [8]. — brighterorange (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or original research. --bainer (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax for sure. Not original research though; that's something quite different. -Splash^talk 21:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Rob e rt 23:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free derivative work[edit]

OR at best. — brighterorange (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete admitted OR. Gazpacho 03:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it admits to WP:NOR! But I wonder if there is such a legal concept. If it chances to get rewritten during AfD, then it can be kept. -Splash^talk 21:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a term used in copyright law, although some users on open source forums appear to throw it around from time to time as an analogy. Derivative work, of course, is a very important concept. In fact, I think I'd better watch that page in case this author decides to, uh, "improve" it with some OR. MCB 01:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Rob e rt 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phr0zed[edit]

Obscure neologism NeilN 03:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef and neologism. --bainer (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. dicdef/neolog. Nateji77 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to User:Phroziac.Delete nnneologism. -Splash^talk 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robots 2 (2010 film)[edit]

A crystal ball that makes zero sense as the article (written as a PR piece - SPAM?), states the film comes out in.... Wait for it... 2006. See also the AfD on 2010 in film four spots up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no IMDb page. CanadianCaesar 03:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP is not a crystall ball. --bainer (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as misplaced crystal balling. To my knowledge no sequel has been announced yet. 23skidoo 04:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any announcements this vague can be covered on the first film's article, or not at all. Nateji77 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per other above editors. --FuriousFreddy 04:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jonathunder 07:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The producer is quoted as 'considering' making a sequel two weeks ago. Which he would, since the first was profitable. Average Earthman 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WTF? --Jacquelyn Marie 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Although if Average Earthman is correct, a small mention in the Robots (film) article wouldn't be out of place. Extraordinary Machine 11:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think Theres a Robots sequelUser:Krabs502

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Angus[edit]

This article appears to be an old news article that is not very notable for Wikipedia. Solarusdude 03:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 22:36, 30 Sep 2005 (CDT)}
Delete notability not established. Nateji77 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, ephemeral news story. MCB 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as patent nonsense --Doc (?) 08:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodaism[edit]

Nonsense NeilN 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy JLaTondre 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. I do not think that “Kelsey Dunn Rhoda is the one and only true Prophet of God” counts as a claim of notability. ♠DanMS 04:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, although I've been thinking about nominating my dog for sainthood...--KJPurscell 04:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I’d vote for your dog over this character. ♠DanMS 05:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clever, but it would be sweet irony to condemn this one to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Three speedy votes on this crap is enough for me - made so --Doc (?) 08:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to Developed country. -Splash^talk 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developed economy[edit]

Nonsense, gets even stranger at the end NeilN 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup or redirect, tho i dont know where. the voice is a bit colloquial, but the concept is real (barring the google reference maybe) and feminist critics do examine gender issues in post-industrial as well as industrializing and pre-industrial societies. Nateji77 05:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Developed country. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily redirected per Christopher Parham, good call. Friday (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Vista Records[edit]

Obscure, only mention on Google is label's website NeilN 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotion. Wording of article is very identical to that on their site's main page. --FuriousFreddy 04:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per FuriousFreddy. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 23:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Amren ^(talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Murder of Rosa Luxemburg[edit]

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC on most counts.

Has never had a top 100 hit
Has never been on a major tour
Has not released two or more albums on other than self-label
Not listed on allmusic.com
No members famous from other notable groups
Has won no major music awards

And finally, the band has split up and no longer exists. ♠DanMS 03:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. Nateji77 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:MUSIC. --FuriousFreddy 04:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Marcus22 12:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Point 2 of WP:MUSIC states "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country" not as it has been misquoted by the nominator, a "major tour" Evidence of tours: http://www.toxicpete.co.uk/tmorl.html http://www.indigoflow.co.uk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=48 Therefore they have toured the UK, meet point 2 and are notable. There is no shortage of online journalism about this band. Also, besides your stating that the band no longer exists being factually incorrect, since when was that a criterion for deletion? Stephen 12:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As SilhouetteSaloon said they have been on a national tour of the country playing noted venues such as the London Astoria. They have released one album and three Eps on UNDERGROOVE records which is not a self run label it a MAJOR label currently holding contracts for bands such as Alexisonfire and Johnny Truant http://www.undergroove.co.uk. As to point 4 "not Listed on All Music.com" All Music has a reasonably pathetic database of English rock music, providing little to no information on major bands such as Million Dead which are given nothing except the genre "Rock" and a picture of their first album. Further proof of their mainstream existance can be found in the fact that their album is available from Amazon.co.uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000E6RR5/qid%3D1128090115/202-4739900-3915855

TO address your final point "The band has split up and no longer exists" the band are actually still in existance working to get their final album done (which also, by the way, invalidates Point 3 of your argument), the band are not necessarily splitting up but inner turmoil may lead to line-up changes and FURTHERMORE there are numerous bands who have split up on Wikipedia, yet that doesnt make it a valid reason for removing their Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a resource for people to find information and there is little to no point in making unnecessary deletions such as deleting this when there are editorials on the make up of the turd the author took yesterday hovering around wikipedia. Your time is better spent being a busy body on the really unnecessary wikipedia pages.WFCO 15:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm.. no need to be unpleasant. Surely the point about the band splitting up is a fair one in as much as were the vote to be borderline, the fact that they had split up would probably tilt the vote against keeping the article. (Not by virtue of the fact that they had split up - as you rightly say, many bands have split up but are still included - but by virtue of the fact that in splitting up they would be unlikely to become more notable). Marcus22 13:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first source given did not talk about a tour, it said they were playing gigs. This is not the same thing. The second one mentioned "a short 5-date tour" with 2 other bands, it's not clear who the headliner was. I'm thinking they don't meet WP:MUSIC, but the apparent existance of a record makes me wonder. Friday (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your differentiation between playing lots of gigs over a short period of time and and touring sounds to me like big business promotional rhetoric. And there's nothing 'apparent' about the existence of recorded output Stephen 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not intended that way at all. I'm an independant musician myself, and my band plays gigs, but we do not "tour". I'm all in favor of music being made outside of "big business". Unfortunately, I think the tone of this discussion has gotten unneccessarily combative. Remember, we all want to do what's right for Wikipedia. Sometimes we have different opinions. Friday (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid I agree with Friday's interpretation of the 'tour' — it just wasn't, I'm afraid. Releasing EPs doesn't really make the grade unless they significantly chart, and WP:MUSIC wants two albums. However, having split up is irrelevant. -Splash^talk 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per media coverage. WP:MUSIC only demanded ONE requirement to be passed, last time I looked. Kappa 23:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Point 4 requires Major media coverage, it does not require it to be specifically All music.com and I've found an issue of Rock Sound in which they feature http://www.rock-sound.net/current_issue.php?issue_id=55 Do a word search you'll find them there which, i think, is enough to keep them on Wikipedia. WFCO 01:35, 31 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator, do not meet WP:MUSIC requirements. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Gamaliel 03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as evident by tour info OmegaWikipedia 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. Friday (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Znode[edit]

Ad.--Shanel 03:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. Nateji77 04:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to prove that it isn't just an ad. Ciraric 20:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The article has only had one edit since the AfD tag. -Splash^talk 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Electronics[edit]

(Nominated by Twang.) Non-encyclopedic spam. — Mateo SA | talk 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for an electronics course. Text is most likely right from the website. ♠DanMS 05:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. school spam. Nateji77 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first article I have submitted to this resource and I apologize for the format of this article. This resource is a free educational module on the electronics industry. I thought is would be easier for a user to go directly to the information via the weblink and not post all the content explanation and additional resources in the article. If all the materials need to be included here, I will reformat the materials to accomplish this. I am also open to having the links added to a resource site. The object of the development of these materials is to have everyone that is in electronics using them when they are needed. Please advise me on what would be the best way to present this information and not have it look like spam or an advertizement. It was not intended to be offensive but only a new resource to be used. --Tom 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular article seems to promote one particular course from this company. I would suggest an article on WorkReady Electronics (website), from which you got this information. You could describe the history and purpose of the company and some of the types of courses that they offer. The article must not sound like a promotion for the company, but a description of the company and its importance in the field of occupational education. If the company is at all notable or has an established reputation in occupational training, then the article would likely be worth keeping. ♠DanMS 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the spam. Vsmith 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DanMS I will take your suggestion and re-write the article as you have suggested. MATEC is an educational division of the Maricopa County Community Colleges and the Work Ready Electronics project has been running online for 2.5 years serving electronics instruction throughout the US Community Colleges Electroinics programs. I will begin the rewrite of the article. Is there a way to retitle the article if it is needed? Tom--Tom 14:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 23:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Ass Whuppin'[edit]

A joke page -- not encyclopedic.

Delete per nomination. --D Monack 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, non-encyclopedic. Dystopos 04:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. lines like "Alabama parents reinforce a disposition for fighting" are pov stereotypes that don't apply to all Alabamans, but claim to, rather like the article itself. if cleaned up, still a dicdef, and deletable as such. Nateji77 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and beware of sock voting. --Golbez 05:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you all are misunderstanding the nature of my approach. The Alabama Ass Whuppin is necessarily a stereotypical concept that, at least to many, is not taken seriously. Hence it only makes sense to explain it using stereotypes and in a manner that suggests its questionable basis in fact.

Delete Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 09:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the unsigned comment. -Splash^talk 21:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
""Do not delete"" - User:nspeds (preceding unsigned comment by 141.161.73.33 (talk · contribs) 07:00, 3 October 2005)
Don't delete--it's true... (preceding unsigned comment by 68.59.199.186 (talk · contribs) 04:44, 4 October 2005) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WP:BJAODN and delete. This is definitely not encyclopedic, but I've got to admit that it's funny. Kamezuki 08:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"new age bible and philosophy center"[edit]

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 04:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're posting business hours in the 'Pedia? This is an ad.--KJPurscell 05:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as link spam, ad spam and spampity-spam. Speedy if possible. Title is useless. - Lucky 6.9 05:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. spam/ad. we're not the white pages, and we're certainly not the yellow pages. Nateji77 05:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tasteless ad. --Wetman 09:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. -- RHaworth 08:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Of America Patriot Act[edit]

Was listed for speedy deletion but it doesn't qualify. An essay. Delete. Eric119 04:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USA PATRIOT Act. — Mateo SA | talk 04:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However thoughtful it might be, it's still an essay.--KJPurscell 05:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USA PATRIOT Act per Mateo SA. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content, replace with redirect per above. Nateji77 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student essay by the article’s own admission. ♠DanMS 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per BDA. Xoloz 05:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USA PATRIOT Act per Mateo SA. It's... Thelb4! 06:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Then create a redirect without this OR essay in the history. Jonathunder 07:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and recreate as redirect to remove history per User:Jonathunder, Usrnme h8er 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as redirect per Jonathunder. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. 23skidoo 14:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV essay, this slightly mistitled name could be a search term so create a new redirect per Jonathunder. Barno 15:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This one seems like an especially obvious call. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MEANING OF JOBS[edit]

Rambling, non-encyclopedic essay, possible copyvio. — Mateo SA | talk 04:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay. "The month of March pulsates with feelings of joy and excitement to every graduating student"? And if that sentence showed up in front of a professor, I'm not sure that student would be graduating, or that March would be pulsating anymore.--KJPurscell 05:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, please stick that line in BJAODN. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. if i thought it might survive its afd status i'd worry about the copyvio, but i don't. Nateji77 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay. --Wetman 09:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Rob e rt 23:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITOK[edit]

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 04:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--KJPurscell 05:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Nateji77 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Google summary taken from the relevant hidden line in their site says they are a Fortune 500 co. But our Fortune 500 doesn't list them (though we have the 2004 list). I can't find a 2005 list, but I suspect they may just be googlebaiting. Can anyone help by finding a free 2005 F500 list? -Splash^talk 21:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The relevant line from Google says "offers Fortune 500-class technical consulting", which is trivial sales puffery. I don't see anywhere wshere they actually claim to be a F500 company, which manifestly they aren't; they appear to be a nn local/regional PC support firm, with merely "hundreds" (from their site) of customers. MCB 01:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so deal with at WP:CP. -Splash^talk 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenosaga Script[edit]

Delete. A non-notable minor snippet of script from one episode of a video game. ♠DanMS 05:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki to wikiquote if the Xenosaga fans really want it somewhere. Nateji77 05:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquote. It's... Thelb4! 06:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline copyvio and noncontributory. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio from GameFAQs (click "Game Script": GFaqs doesn't like direct links to its FAQs). Descriptions of actions are identical. Nifboy 05:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzie Playboyz[edit]

I go away for a few days in space and when I return, it's the same old place complete with band vanity! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written (the lyrics, not the music, is sung) self-promotion. Nateji77 05:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band. Cnwb 06:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. Well-known band in northern Michigan. Article may need to be re-written with more historical perspective of the music and unusual focus of band.71.134.212.255 15:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)blackraven@damnedgames.com[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. no AMG entry. Friday (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And now we have support hosiery weighing in. Yes, it's now double delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded Dragons[edit]

Not notable. Nonsense. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 05:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a list of small street gangs. Citizen Premier 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable. Nateji77 05:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. So little context that it's nearly nonsense. --W.marsh 06:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfied --Doc (?) 08:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Theodore Miller[edit]

Vanity article. The author seems to be writing the article about himself. Only real claim to notability is being chairman of a student group, which while admirable, applies to thousands upon thousands of people. --W.marsh 05:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy at User:Joemill2. Nateji77 06:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfied - otherwise it was speediable as an nn-bio --Doc (?) 08:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, after the obvious fumigation. -Splash^talk 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.U.C.K.S.[edit]

Non-verifiable "secret" society, probably hoax Cnwb 05:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a club that has been in existence for some time. I am personal friends of many members, and the society serves primarily as a social group, though their networking and significant influence is well known. There are various items of clothing that are available for members, who suprisingly for a secret society, are happy to wear them around the university. I think photographs of the apparel would certainly lend to this group's credibility.

Both Billy McMahon and Whitlam resided at St._Paul's_College,_Sydney and I'm sure some mention could be found of this in the media.

Unsigned comment posted by User:Maheshm, whose only contribution is this post.

Delete. Ambi 06:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secret socities are inherently unverifiable, or they wouldn't be secrets. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not entirely true. Skull and Bones and the Illuminati have plenty of verifiable material on them although a lot of it is disputed. This however, appears to be vanity more than anything else. The Fanthom section kinda clinches it for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it just me or does a vanity page about a secret society not make much sense? — JIP | Talk 12:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good, independently verifiable evidence of the facts in the article is provided prior to expiration of the AfD period. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be verified. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can at least verify that some of the claims of this article are true. Whilst the Skull and Bones links are probably bordering on impossible to prove and tenuous at best, I can attest that the Phantom, St Paul's College and University of Sydney links are irrefutible. Whilst I didn't attend St Paul's College, rather St Andrew's College, I do know that most of the things argued in this article are true. I also know that the society is not as secret as they make out. The Rock is an actual place next to a public thoroughfare within the grounds of the college. This article, whilst possibly a vanity piece, does have some truth. Perhaps we should give them an opportunity to introduce some more facts and remove some of the more tenuous claims. I know of at least one Australian CEO who was a President of this society. 138.130.23.157 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC). I don't care if the article gets dumped, but the facts, although I hate to admit it, are mostly true, barring what I mentioned previously about Skull and Bones[reply]
- Personal testimony isn't what we mean by verifiability. We need to have an outside reference, preferably a print reference although a website will do, that is one which readers will acknowledge as reliable; the contents of which can be inspected; and which confirms the claims. A newspaper article would do, or a reference in a book, or a university's official website, or something like that. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D.E.L.E.T.E. Private Butcher 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised to come across mention of SUCKS here as I wasn't certain of the existence of the organisation, however mere mention of the society here has verified many specific details that I had already heard elsewhere in the past about the body. While not connected to Sydney University in any way (I am, in fact, based in the United States), I first heard mention of the organisation a few years ago in conversation with an Australian stockbroker in his sixties. What I can tell you is that the society certainly is real, as regular contact with this financier and some of his associates subsequently confirmed. These are reputable individuals who are discreet and well-respected, and it is erroneous to suggest they'd be making this all up (and I can't see them as the kind of folks who'd be authoring a piece on Wiki!!). That said, I'll concede that you are always going to have trouble verifying the existence of something that, at least to my knowledge, has not received media coverage and attempts to remain under the radar. The page would, however, be of interest to members as well as those curious of the existence of such societies so I believe there is merit in allowing the page to be saved from deletion as, especially given the subject matter, it is likely to receive more expansive and in depth additions once it has become available for broader viewing. That something like the Men In Black conspiracy theory which is equally unverifiable as an event of fact appears on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_conspiracy_theory) provides equal justification for inclusion of information about something also speculative, that being S.U.C.K.S. I suggest it is given time to flourish.

Posted by User:64.223.226.185, who has contributed to the article.

- "mere mention of the society here has verified many specific details that I had already heard elsewhere" - Mere mention doesn't verify anything, and neither does hearsay, even from people who aren't "the kind of folks who'd be authoring a piece on Wiki" (whatever that means). We can't have an encyclopedia built on rumour and speculation. Cnwb 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let it remain a secret. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stick it on the WP:ARC thing... 68.39.174.238 03:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bankers in their 60's are unlikely to be spending time on the net working on a piece about their secret society... and none of what was on the site read like something written by well-educated bankers (i.e it was riddled with spelling errors until I cleaned it up). If I'm to make a fair assumption that they haven't written this, then someone else presumably also knows about this society. I raised the appearance of this page with my Australian contact this evening and while he sounded a little perturbed about the existence of the information he offered that the best he could do would be to contribute a photo of one of the group's items of clothing bearing the society's logo for page verification. Might this serve to satisfy some of those eager for more proof of the body's existence?

Unsigned comment by User:64.223.226.185, who has now voted twice

Delete: creative, but it's no Skull and Bones.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable, badly written, and not really encyclopaedic. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- This is an organisation that is well known in Sydney especially among professional circles and the article would be both a valuable and interesting addition to a limited core of material on the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.165.112 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 October 2005
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. Carbonite | Talk 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax. WW1 nominal roll has no Lawrence Bagg returning to Australia [9]. The second paragraph about Bagg does not ring true at all. --User:AYArktos | Talk 01:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resoundingly non-notable. Slac speak up! 02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DVEO[edit]

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 06:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Cnwb 06:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost-ad for nn company. Nateji77 06:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer sandwich[edit]

non-notable fictional item from one episode of a TV show Cnwb 06:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable item. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn trivia. Nateji77 06:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng sai mun[edit]

This article is non-verifiable, very likely hoax. A sister page Lim Peh Oh is also nominated for deletion. -- Vsion 07:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-verifiable. Anville 11:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to comprehend why anyone would spend so much time writting a hoax article like this. If he is a "popular model/actor from Singapore", it wont be nominated for an AfD. Never heard of any of those films or album listed, and what Galaxy awards? Where's Woodlands Shopping Centre? The only items which are true are the existance of those three schools?--Huaiwei 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 15:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings v. Last Alliance[edit]

I think the term starcruft is in order here... WP:ISNOT a game guide. Delete Usrnme h8er 08:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the claims of popularity are patently false, and once you strip those away, it's just a description of a fan-made Starcraft map. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. -- Malo 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mustafa[edit]

The article is based on a single joke from the short-lived Roc (TV show). A redirect would not make sense as the name isn't mentioned in the article. -- Kjkolb 08:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not encyclopedic. feydey 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems unlikely anyone would search for this. Ilmari Karonen 00:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as linkspam --Doc (?) 08:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesu Joseph[edit]

This appears to be a vanity page.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied under A7 --Doc (?) 08:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Tankard[edit]

Not notable. Spam. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 08:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HaloGen (Mod)[edit]

Crystalballery about a unreleased Command and Conquer mod of no particular newsworthiness that I could uncover. Seems like it's been mentioned on quite a few forums and once on Kotaku (a gaming blog), but that's it. (Applying the Google test turned out to be futile, because of the mod's name.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crufty, vain and far from encyclopedic. (Gosh, I sound like I'm in a bad mood today.) Anville 11:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not encyclopedic if it's unreleased. — JIP | Talk 12:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a legitimate article. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean you should delete it. There are plenty of articles about mods (e.g. The Specialists) and this is one of the best-written ones. Swinger222 12:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least until it's released. Carbonite | Talk 16:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theme from Mahogany (Do You Know Where You're Going To?) (Diana Ross song)[edit]

The article duplicates material in Mahogany (1975 film), and should be a redirect. User:FuriousFreddy has been trying to do this, but User:OmegaWikipedia insists on reverting. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (may need protecting).. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Not sure if my vote counts for anything), but redirect and protect. --FuriousFreddy 11:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahogany and "Do You Know Where You're Going To" need to be seperate articles. One is about a movie, another one is about a #1 single. Surely, the articles for Titanic and My Heart Will Go On do not get merged as one article. OmegaWikipedia 12:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The single is the theme song to a movie. Are we going to have seperate articles on every Disney song from every Disney movie? --FuriousFreddy 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not? Wiki is not paper. I personally think that merging would create bloat and that redirecting would be a nonsense reply to the problem that doesn't really solve anything. Keep. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per OmegaWikipedia. Theme from Mahogany is an independently notable song as witnessed by the huge number of cover versions over the years (including at least one that was made its own article, albeit AFD'd), and Diana Ross' version is the preeminent recording of this song. If the material in the article is too much a carbon copy of the movie article, then be bold and rewrite it. 23skidoo 14:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- When it gets rewritten, it can be kept. I don't have any information o nteh record beyond basics, nor do I have the time to go out of my way to research it. And I've never heard of a single cover of the song notable enough for its own article. If someone can write an article with information that is not redundant with an article on the movie, then do so. However, as it stands now, the article should be redirected. --FuriousFreddy 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the whole point of wikipedia to let the article stay and have people who do have the information make it better?
Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Movies are not songs, and vice versa. Kappa 23:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But who said that they were? When a song title redirects to the singer, that's not because we think that singers are songs or vice versa. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song is enough of a distinct entity from the movie to have its own article. I was a teenager in the 70's and listened to a lot of pop radio. I have clear memories of this song as being representative of that era in music, whereas I've never watched the movie in its entirety. LiniShu 03:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Popular song by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 09:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Everyking 07:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blomkin[edit]

Sexual slang dicdef. 37 google hits. As a neologism, should be deleted and not transwikied to wiktionary. Thue | talk 09:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism of no real note. Anville 11:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef based on incorrect spelling of blumpkin which redirects to oral sex. Spelling is too far off to be useful as a redirect. --TM ^(talk) 22:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. MCB 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Rx StrangeLove 01:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Tucker[edit]

Vanity Cnwb 09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, vanity. Anville 11:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Admittedly somewhat borderline, but he has some notability as former editor and current part-owner of diskmagazine Loadstar, which had a "redlink" to him on its article before this was created; he also has some notability among Harry Stephen Keeler fans for republishing that author's books, and his Ramble House site is linked on the Keeler page. *Dan T.* 13:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone2k[edit]

Non-notable fanpage Cnwb 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn, unverifiable to boot. Anville 11:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it is verified, why is it notable. WP isn't a webdirectory. -- Malo 17:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hinze[edit]

Google search for "joe hinze" + socksy = zero results. Hardly "a staple today in underground music" Cnwb 09:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "2005 hit [...] continues to be a staple today" = bad joke. Reads like vanity with section headings. Anville 11:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like a hoax to me. (Might even speedy as a possible attack page, based on last section.) Ilmari Karonen 00:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense/attempt to communicate/vandalism... who knows? --Doc (?) 11:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Longman[edit]

Total rubbish, seems to just be the contents of an email and of no encyclopaedic benefit whatsoever Ben W Bell 09:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, article re-created multiple times by socks of Girls Aloud/Manchester/Obesity vandal (Bad Tax Man and multiple socks)

Obesta[edit]

Complete content: "Obesta is the god of obesity worshipped by Christians, Scientology, Hindus and Sikhs.". I doubt it. Thue | talk 09:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. — JIP | Talk 09:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy speedy speedy The Land 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to discuss this? Delete as extremely patent nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it needs research. From an anon. --150.204.69.67 12:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge. Rx StrangeLove 01:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider Level Editor[edit]

Non notable. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 09:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tomb Raider JoJan 15:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JoJan Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per JoJan. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. This is going to be tedious... -Splash^talk 22:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winnners[edit]

From J. P. McManus Scholarship Award: Joseph McCarthy (IV), Donal O'Brien (II), Patrick Dundon, Tevor Clancy, John O'Halloran, Patrick Gavin, Raymond Casey, David Fahey, Trevor Byrne, Thomas Fleming (VII), John Walshe, Roger Gough, Michael Metcalfe, Declan Hogan, Patrick O'Doherty, Joseph Mulqueen.

Winning a scholarship does not make you notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Thue | talk 09:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't make you notable. Delete. Pilatus 10:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just merge the lot in J. P. McManus Scholarship Award winners or J. P. McManus Scholarship Award. They may not be notable as individuals, but people usually want to know who won an award when they look it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They are already listed in J. P. McManus Scholarship Award. Pilatus 12:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, checked everything but that. :( Still, it might be worth to merge their birthdates to avoid confusion with other people by the same name. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not notable. Delete. But keep the J. P. McManus Scholarship Award article. Mushroom 11:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, delete articles for individual winners. Leave them listed on J. P. McManus Scholarship Award. --A bit iffy 11:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keith[edit]

Don't think this is a speedy, though a Google search only brings up a livejournal which isn't really notable. Haven't looked further into Google results though. Francs 2000 10:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks legit to me. Marcus22 11:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just a livejournal? He's written three books, which (together with his columns) seem to have gotten quite a bit of attention in the wrestling world. I had never heard of him, but I think he's notable enough. --JoanneB 12:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has written several books and is well-known by pro wrestling insiders. ErikNY 12:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh lord, my secret affinity for wrestling rises again. Keith is a well-known, somewhat controversial pundit. Xoloz 07:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' So now it's down to people from a blog saying it's okay whether they admit it or not? This site has went downhill.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xanga Incident[edit]

Does nto appear notable The Land 11:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something that happened on a blogging site. The Land 11:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable --NeilN 11:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no meaningful content (sounds incoherent to me) JoJan 15:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if that isn't nonsense, I dunno what is. Excerpt: "GGYY would then go on to mentally assualt TAS bloggers with quick wit and dirty secrets." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic.--Alhutch 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki to Encyclopaedia Dramatica~~. Wait. Hell. Never mind. Delete. Now. --Wwwwolf 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. That is the worst brand of WTF nonsense I have ever seen. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion. Tito xd 23:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, {{nonsense}}. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn Trio[edit]

non-notable. 202.156.6.60 11:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, they are notable with 78,700 hits in Google. But the article is poorly written. it needs to be expanded. JoJan 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage http://www.ahntrio.com/reviews.html Kappa 23:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Military domunism[edit]

Hoax. Delete. Lupo 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Verging between hoax and original research. The Land 11:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with User:The Land JoJan 15:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Author gets to participate in the AfD debate. -Splash^talk 22:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everywhere Girl[edit]

I think this could possibly be speedied, but just in case: this article is so vague it's not even clear who its subject refers to MC MasterChef 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May well be notable (but I'm not sure if it is) as an internet phenomenon. Everywhere Girl dossier on The Inquirer seems to have a point, tbh. The Land 11:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically, some girl (the photographer doesn't even know her name) appears in a stock photo shoot. Said stock photos are used by different companies (duh, that's what stock photos are all about). For some reason The Inquirer tech website is obsessed with this. Definitely not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was about to write this article myself, in fact, and could contribute to it. The fascinating thing about this is the girl is not only being used by different companies, but by competing companies, as well as academic institutions, governmental sites, and so on. It's a comment on the generic and ubiquitous nature of advertising. - Scooter 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I'm the one who added the article, so obviously I'm voting Keep) Scooter, that's exactly the reason I added the article. I couldn't put it so eloquently. Please feel free to add to the article. I just wanted to get it started, because it seemed odd to me for there not to be an article about such a well-known internet phenomenon.

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP (nomination withdrawn, no delete votes). — JIP | Talk 12:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sloggi[edit]

~~nn.~~ 202.156.6.60 11:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly well-known brand. Over 1m hits on Google. Owned by Triumph International, a global conglomerate with sales of USD 1.6 Billion. Article needs expanding not deleting.
Strong keep, notable brand of men's underwear. Women's underwear probably too, but I wouldn't know about that. — JIP | Talk 11:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely well known brand of both men's and women's underwear. I'd be surprised if we haven't got anything this stashed away somewhere already in more complete detail. -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Marcus22 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well known brand, was surprised it's just a stub. --JoanneB 11:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ok I withdraw my nn claim. Keep --202.156.6.59 12:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony![edit]

Full article text: Derived from the phrase often used in parts of 17th century England to hail a prostitute. There are rumors that Gayland Woodliffe, a drunk with little historical record or indeed relevance, once uttered it in a parliamentary meeting, causing much uproar within the house. (bolding mine) Given this, I don't see why it warrants an entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good, verifiable source citations are provided, prior to expiration of AfD, showing that it is truly "a phrase often used in parts of 17th century England to hail a prostitute" and unless good, verifiable source citations are provided to show that the "rumors" themselves are widely known and notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verified, and even then it's non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Maybe BJAODNify. ESkog 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What ESkog said. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Lupo 12:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Byrne[edit]

nonsense & attack 202.156.6.59 12:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to KUMM. -Splash^talk 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kumm radio[edit]

non-notable. 202.156.6.59 13:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, delete. --fvw * 13:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable JoJan 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly redirected to KUMM. This is a real and notable radio station (save the jokes, they've heard them all) with an existing article. Someone please close this? MCB 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. Nominator agreed to redirecting, no objections from other voters. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bagrat IV[edit]

~~We already have a full article on Bagrat IV of Georgia. This stub has no new information. --Valentinian 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)~~ My error. A redirect is of course the proper solution. --Valentinian 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, redirect to Bagrat IV of Georgia. I'd do it, but we're not supposed to do that while the AFD is in progress. Valentinian, do you want to change your vote to redirect? DS 14:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily redirected per above. No reason to continue dragging this through AFD. Friday (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone already redirected it. I don't expect this merge to be controversial. If it is, this discussion can be reopened, but since the nominator agreed and since it's the most logical thing to do, I think it's save to close this debate. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zurkhaneh[edit]

Incomplete foreign dictdef. --fvw * 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'd say. Marskell 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why is this even here? --Jacquelyn Marie 22:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikitionary if necessary. Doubt it though. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tus Wutch[edit]

Slang, neologism. DS 13:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, it's a a failed attempt at humor. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --TM ^(talk) 22:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Little debate, but it was a recreation (non-verbatim) of Lake dialect. -Splash^talk 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Dialect[edit]

An article about this entirely unverifiable "dialect" was already deleted in February. The current incarnation is no more verifiable than the previous one was. The edit summary of the first edit even says "this information was passed to me by word of mouth", making it original research. Delete. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per {{deleteagain}} speedy delete tag. Solarusdude 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per --Danleone 15:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up in "The Lake", I am very aware of a very distinct set of words used exclusively there. Whether this qualifies as a "language", a "dialect", an "ideolect" or just an interesting vocabulary is not for me to decide. I can only say that this might be linguistically interesting. I have found only few brief references online so far refering to it. For now, I vote to keep it.

The question is not whether the dialect/accent exists or whether it is linguistically interesting. The question is whether the information is verifiable from published sources. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherkin[edit]

This is an obscure topic, as discussed in WP:V. To quote that section, Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.

The sources here are various websites of dubious credibility. I think Otherkin would be a great topic for a Wikinfo article, but I don't see enough verifiability for this to be included here. Friday (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~No vote~~ (changed to keep, below). I'm confused. Doesn't a website count as a published source? There's no rule saying we have to use scholarly sources. ~~ N (t/c) 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what the nominator said. The article's sources are websites of dubious credibility, and the article seems to be built up from a lot of first-person stories on the Web. The veracity of those primary sources cannot be verified by Wikipedia readers, who are thus required to take the article on faith. Wikipedia needs to report the results of other people who have studied otherkin; right now, this article collects the experiences of otherkin, which makes it original sociological research. WP:NOR notes that it is rare for an article to be built from primary sources alone, especially if it is a contested topic. Ideally the article would be severely stubified but given its history I don't think the regular authors would be willing to do so, so delete to send the NOR message, and possibly write a new stub based on secondary sources until more can be found to expand the article reliably. I'd consider changing my vote if the article is cleaned up to not take primary sources at face value. — mendel ☎ 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think deleting an article to send a message is an appropriate course of action. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't imagine how deleting an article could not send a message, unless the contributors are known to have left Wikipedia. The message is "Do not put this sort of thing in Wikipedia". Sometimes the message is even made explicit with the "This article is deleted, please don't recreate it" template that I can't find right now. — mendel ☎ 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The issue is not that deleting it will not send a message, but that it is not the appropriate way to send the desired message. It seems kind of agreed upon that otherkin is a real topic, just that there is the issue of getting proper sources and an article that reflects those sources. So wouldn’t deleting the article and putting up a warning to not recreate it be effectively hiding from the issue instead of trying to fix the issue itself? And if you intend to replace the article with something else, then I don’t see the point of deleting the article instead of normal editing. AtomicDragon 00:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What sociological truths is the article offering on Otherkin? I don't see how it's original sociological research if it's not making any sociological claims. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's a "sociological truth"? I'm not saying it is/was reporting the results of an experiment, just that it was original research: concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication. But like "patent nonsense", "original research" is one of those things whose Wikipedia-specific definitions tend to be forgotten.. — mendel ☎ 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - A sociological truth is one that we need a sociologist to declare before we can acknowledge it as a truth. =P You seem to be working so hard to make sure the Wikipedia-specific definitions are remembered you're forgetting the functions they were intended to serve; we follow the "no original research" policy not as an end in itself, but to keep Wikipedia free of crackpots and cranks who want Wikipedia to publicize their pet theories. To say that people are not credible sources for statements about what their own beliefs are and that we must wait until a "reputable publication" has covered them and then take that publication's word over the word of those they're reporting on just shows the hazards of taking any policy and following it too literally too long. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NOR says: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)". This seems to fit that description - "Otherkin say A, B, and C; people say X and Y about otherkin". Keep. ~~ N (t/c) 02:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its credibility or lack thereof aside, it's a belief system which has a great many adherents. Even when you eliminate otherkin.com, otherkin.net, and Wikimirrors, Google still returns >125K hits. DS 14:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strange, even weird, but encyclopedical. JoJan 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying this should be deleted because the belief system isn't credible. Young Earth creationism isn't credible (to me) either, but clearly it's appropriate to have an article on it. If this article used reputable sources, I would have no issue with it. Some websites are reputable sources, some are not. Anyone can have a website and claim whatever they want. I invite anyone who's interested to read the websites listed as sources. These are personal websites, not cnn.com. Please, let's make this discussion about verifiability, not the irrelevant-to-our-purposes question of the merits of the Otherkin belief system. Friday (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopedias are the repository for obscure articles. Joaquin Murietta 16:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC) PS, why delete an article that cites ^ "Dealing with the Bloodthirst". Sanguinarius: Vampire Guide. as a source? Joaquin Murietta 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Good article about encyclopedic topic. I'd consider the FAQ and otherkin.net to be credible sources, especially because they are written by the community of "otherkin". It's easy enough, given that citations are provided, for the reader to make up his own mind about the veracity of the article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you go to the Talk:Otherkin/Archive 3 you'll find quite a few published sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup -- There are core facts that are easily verifiable here: a number of people consider themselves to be otherkin, the exact specifics of which change depending upon who you talk to. The only parts that are unverifiable are whether what these people claim to be true is actually true (though common sense should tell us otherwise). The fact that these claims are made is undeniable, well-documented, and widespread. I severely question the rationale in interpreting the Wikipedia:No original research policy in such an exaggerated way. If we keep things down to object facts and avoid the weirdness we get periodically where certain editors claim it's real, that certain otherkin are better than others, that they are psychic and reinarnated and have animal DNA and yada yada yada as if they were proven, then there is no problem. Documenting nutty fringe beliefs is quite verifiable, as this particular one is not so small that there's any problems involved on that end, assuming we can get past the people constantly inserting their own POV and making false claims that rewriting for NPOV is "disrespectful" shos "bad faith" and whatever other nonsense they come up with. DreamGuy 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard the term Otherkin before, but conceptually I will agree that as a sub-culture these people do exist... albeit in small numbers. I used to work night stock at a grocery store and the "vampires" would come in occasionally around 3 am. I guess blood goes down easier with an EZ-Cheez chaser. No vote yet though... I want to research the usage of this term more first.--Isotope23 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'm satisfied that this is not a neologism. Article does need a cleanup tag after the AfD is complete though.--Isotope23 16:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. I think this is more common than nom would like. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with cleanup as Jacquelyn Marie stated. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The dubious sources are not being cited for their dubious veracity, but as products of a subculture. There's a significannt, if fringe, subculture of people who think they are elves or vampires or whatnot, and the existance of a market in books and such about and being sold to such people is evidence that such a subculture exists. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main problem with the article (not just this version, but anything about the topic) is that it needs, perforce, to lump together a very broad spectrum of beliefs, ranging from simple alternate spirituality to pseudoscience to outright lunacy. So some of it is verifiable as much as anything in the realm of religion, spirituality, or philosophy; while other parts are very difficult to source reliably or at all. But it is worth keeping as, at least, a verifiably notable phenomenon (although until reading the article I had never actually heard the term "otherkin", even though instantiations of the belief system had been related to me). MCB 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:A Man In Black, User:MCB. I've added a reference from a print source as well. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being self-admittedly very odd, I've been familiar with this sub-culture for sometime, and am surprised at the variety of places I encounter it. I'm somewhat taken aback to see editors here unaware, which is more reason for an article. Furries alone are more numerous than anyone suspects. Xoloz 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Likability is not a criterion; the subculture's existence is demonstrable, and the term is in common (if not mainstream) use as a quick Google will show without effort. Coren 21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. -Sean Curtin 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a part of the Otherkin community, and it's more widespread than you might think. This page is dead-on for the common issues.69.110.12.6 16:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am also a part of the Otherkin community. It grows every day. It saddens me that editors here can not see how numerous we really are. This article is a broad but accurate description of our beliefs. Why delete it? I am sure Several Otherkin would agree. --Jwaf725 14:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may be little point in commenting further, but I still want to clarify. Of course there are lots of them; what does that have to do with anything? I know there are also lots of people who, for example, like to eat jello. However, if someone wrote an article describing these folks and giving information about them, I'd want verifiability there also. There is a difference between what exists and what's verifiable. In theory, WP is meant to include only things that are verifiable. Friday (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Same old Communists vs. people with red hair distinction. Self-described "otherkin" have a shared culture and influence each other (unless you want to get anal about whether there's a larger "otherkin" culture or if it's a series of distinct, discrete subcultures, but then you're into content issues and not whether or not this article should be deleted), instead of just having a shared attribute (a belief/delusion, depending on your POV). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - As for the content question of one subculture v multiple, that's a good, valid question. I'd be tempted to consider the spiritual side of the Otherkin movement to be a subset of modern shamanism. The problem with these kinds of content questions is, there has been no way to resolve them. With no proper sources, it's just up to editor's opinions. Thus, this article functions as a magnet for original research. We haven't even been able to resolve fundamental questions, such whether "Otherkin" is the proper blanket term for things like "Vampyres", "Dragons", "Elves", and "Therianthropes". When the Otherkin community has a variety of different definitions and beliefs, there's little hope of consensus on this article. Friday (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By itself, the number of othrekin means little, but combine with their self-describing nature yields a lot of material written on the group from within. Many attempt to describe the group as a whole, noting various observations. To me, that seems to be the point most of the original research is being done, even though WP has to attempt to combine information from several such sources (doesn’t this happen, to some degree, for most subjects?). Looking at the bigger picture, in my opinion, an article on this would add to WP’s encyclopedic value, as many people do stumble upon it and can benefit by seeing a general overview of the subject that is confirmable at the basic level in various otherkin sources. The details are much harder to work out, and as MCB already mentioned, such a diverse group is very hard to talk about as a whole, but that is a matter of cleaning up and not deletion in my opinion. I may be misinterpreting policy though, so I’ll only comment instead of vote for now. AtomicDragon 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entire nomination seems to me to be a complete misunderstanding that we only demand verification, and bar original research, to the degree that a claim is questionable. To delete this article implies that we cannot verify any of the claims contained therein, not even "people who describe themselves as Otherkin exist"; to say that we cannot verify that, despite being able to go to hundreds of websites where people are describing themselves as Otherkin, because we cannot quote some professional source who has also read the websites affirming that yes, Otherkin exist -- if the nominator didn't appear to be entirely serious I would suspect an attempt at reductio ad absurdam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's rather clear from even a casual reading that the WP:NOR rule exists for preventing wikipedia from becoming a platform for cranks or pet theories; the Otherkin article is neither. Otherwise the article describing Brights would need to be deleted as well: it also explains the nature of a term used by a group to describe itself, and from primary sources at that. I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to find other examples. Coren 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. Robert McClenon 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Keep Gimmiet 02:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is full of misinformation, original research and crank. Agriculture 05:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- have you researched the topic?Gimmiet 05:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and I challenge you to find peer reviewed and respected journals substantiating the beliefs posited in the article. Agriculture 05:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Peer-reviewed? Vampire? Joaquin Murietta 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - In otherwords, no scientist worth his salt will substantiate the ridiculous claims made on the page by angsty teens looking for an outlet fantasy world. Otherkin is bullshit. Agriculture 06:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        So all of the people claiming to be otherkin simply do not exist? Are all such accounts that come up in my web-browser an optical illusion, since you seem to claim that they don't exist? And you are right that no scientist would likely write a paper on this in a science journal, since this is a cultural topic, not a science one. AtomicDragon 16:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I realize you are trolling, but I will bite. I never say people who suffer from dellusions do not exist, simply that the dellusion is just that with nothing to back up the claim but angsty blogs. FYI: Sociologists write plenty of scientific papers on cultural topics, it's their job. Psychologists likewise write plenty of papers on similar dellusions, their job as well. Agriculture 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, all I am suggesting is that as long as this group actually exists, there is reason for this page to not be deleted as an actual factual article can exist on it. If the article simply states verifiably what the people are (and hence listing what they claim, as claims not fact) and any recorded counterpoints to it, then that would appear to be a factual article to me. At the moment, the word trolling appears it can go both ways, so please avoid such attacks and so that we can move on and actually discuss a compromise on this.AtomicDragon 17:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the article could be reworked, I'd agree, but the POV pushers have so far prevented any factual additions to the article. On the issue of trolling, I am simply posting my opinion and stating it as such. You're making shit up and wildly and purposefully exaggerating my statements so you can troll for defenses to your strawman arguements. Nice to meet you AtomicDragon, now stop trolling because I have no tolerance for trolls. I will not respond to your trollish statements again. Agriculture 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        We have both made some exaggerations in the end as an attempt to illustrate a point. That worked out poorly, so it is at least a mistake on my part. Nonetheless, we will need to have some actual discussion to work this out, and simply not state that our own view on the situation is clearly the correct one.AtomicDragon 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Please remember civility, Agriculture, and stop making personal attacks. Neither your original argument nor your subsequent argument hold up. Your first argument was 'no reputable source will ever say "Yes, what Otherkin claim about themselves is true"; therefore, we must delete this article as unverifiable.' The enthymeme there is "all articles about Otherkin must describe their claims as truth, rather than as their claims." This is not the case. Your subsequent argument is that "POV pushers will always prevent the article from being maintained in an NPOV state." The number of articles that are actually worth deleting simply because we cannot come to agreement on them is minimal. Since you yourself have only edited Otherkin twice and one of those edits was simply to place three cleanup tags on it at once, I question whether you have sufficient knowledge of what happens when you try NPOVing the article to declare that it could never possibly work. By the way, speaking of verifiability, would you mind giving us details on the University of Minnesota study you refer to in this edit? Since much of the discussion here has been made under the assumption that no professional study of those who believe themselves "otherkin" has been made, and since your edit (which I'm sure you marked 'minor' by accident) contradicts that, I'm sure providing details would be appreciated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think an important distinction was made: scholarly treatment of Otherkin is NOT going to amount to a scientific effort to prove or disprove their beliefs. That would just be silly. Christianity (or any major religion) is obviously verifiable as a belief system without needing to prove or disprove their beliefs. FWIW, the closest thing I've seen to a scholarly treatment of this is over at Clinical lycanthropy. Friday (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is controversial and certainly has its problems caused by warring POVs, but this is a topic not covered by other encyclopedias but worthy of inclusion in this one. Kit 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep But Clean Up For many, this is a spiritual path. No religion on the planet is independantly verifiable and yet there's nothing wrong with providing a basic set of information on what it's follower's believe. Writing a book on the subject doesn't make it true, it just makes it published. There are significant and serious sites which address the subject which act in the same manner of highlighting and defining the term. It doesn't matter if you share the belief or not. What wiki is supposed to be about is giving information on a variety of subjects. Why is otherkin not a valid subject to give information on? One need not share it's view to still acknowledge it is a valid viewpoint/belief/path for some people. It is, therefore, it should be discussed. You can't simply remove something because you don't believe it personally.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Operation[edit]

Article is very nicely done, very clean, not too much braggadocio. But unfortunately, they're a "newly formed" band, "still in the process of recording their first album (as yet untitled)". DS 14:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still a well thought out article with good ideas and information. 09:54, 1 October, 2005 Chillie

Note: Above comment actually added by User:61.68.53.30, whose only edits are concerning the article in question. The name signed above does not appear to have ever been used. DreamGuy 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 23:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gorilla Operation as well as Gorilla operation (so as not to leave a broken redirect) because of nonnotability/vanity/spam. DreamGuy 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am the 13yr old author of this article. I would like to say that I am in no way affiliated with the band in question. They have no idea this artile was writen, so the accusation of "vanity" is not true. Thankyou. !Please Keep This Article!

To the author: Please don't be offended in any way by the deletion nomination. This is not intended as a judgement on the band. I'm sure they're quite good. The problem is, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so many of us have high expectations of what goes in the main "article space". While many editors may be of the opinion that GO isn't "significant" enough to be included, there's actually an even bigger problem: Nothing in the article is verifiable. If you can show us that the music media is talking about this band, that would make them verifiable. If they're not yet to the point where they're getting that kind of coverage, there's really no way for them to go in an encyclopedia. WP does not allow what we call original research. That means your own experiences are not considered appropriate for inclusion. If you were to go review a show and interview the band for example, WP would not be an appropriate place to publish that work. I hope you understand, nobody's trying to say that the band (or your article) is bad. We're just saying WP isn't the right place for it. Friday (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Author:thankyou for the feedback. Would it count as a varification if their music was list as "1# most downloaded" on a music download site. I mentioned this fact in the article. I belive this is enough to varify them as a music influence to some degree. Also, the research was done from the bands website (2nd redirect in article).This proves this it was not, how you say, "original research" as i was not involved with the original research.

Don't hold back on us, are they or aren't they #1 most downloaded on some notable site? I'm not sure if it would answer WP:MUSIC requests, but being coquettish about it definitely doesn't help. Check out the WP:MUSIC criteria and list any that GO matches, it will simplify matters. Until then:

Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's Takeing So Long?!?. - It's come to my attention that this has been going on for 6 days... When will you actually come to a decision and delete my damn article.... Though it would be nice if you kept it.... thankyou, the author.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Csull[edit]

This is a vanity page about a non-notable. Melanchthon 14:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn, ad for nn blog CLW 15:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. Blog link munged to not contribute google hits. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 22:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sable Holiday[edit]

This is a vanity advertisement for a non-notable. Melanchthon 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she may be grotesque, but Google gives enough hits to suggest to me that, although she may not be particularly notable (in my opinion) she may be well known in certain circles. But the last couple of sentences need to go - advertising. CLW 15:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete seems of at best marginal notability to me. i have removed the specifically promotional content from the article. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable within her genre (no less so than Tawny Peaks, Pandora Peaks, etc etc.) 23skidoo 18:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough. Kappa 23:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Would like to see this individual's name, etc., as part of the research. I am not sure of the appropriate cat or stub, either. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable for what? Denni☯ 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For the number of people interested in her. Kappa 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - *''Sigh''* - They're not interested in her, Kappa, they're interested in her tits. And have you any evidence, other than your own opinion, of the number of people interested in her? The article, like too many others you vote to keep, is frighteningly short on details. Denni☯ 00:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If no-one was interested in her, there would not be so many websites using her name. Kappa 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A local stripper, apparently. I have no objection to that, of course, but this is not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Mashayekhi[edit]

Non notable, as near as I can make out Mallocks 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Mallocks 14:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity. NN - starts off by saying he is "aspiring" (i.e. "not there yet"). Ends up reading like a lonely hearts ad. CLW 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 16:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blagger[edit]

This is a neologism, and reeks of vanity. I'd say it almost qualifies for a speedy; unfortunately, not quite. Ashenai 15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. Stupid vanity. CLW 15:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also see Alex Blagg. Friday (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merely going by Google hits for "Alex Blagg" and "Blagg Blogg", the guy actually seems notable (though I do realize that bloggers generally get inflated Google hits). I actually considered listing Alex Blagg on AfD, but refrained for this reason. --Ashenai 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Blagg and merge contents. --Marco ^✉ 12:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 22:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The hungry man[edit]

nn. about a book which doesn't seem to have ISBN. 202.156.6.60 15:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wrote this page and did not know it should include the ISBN. The Hungry Man: ISBN 9789743452116; There You Go! ISBN 9789749286302. I think both books are published in Thailand by Hungry Man Books (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.232.8.1 (talk • contribs) 10:23 ET, 30 September 2005

Keep The book is self published, but it seems that the author is known in the international aid community, aand so is the book to soem extent. I ahve added proper links to two online reveiws, and the ISBN to the article. DES ^(talk) 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to The Hungry Man for proper capitalization, I think. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for '"The Hungry Man" "Oren Ginzburg"' comes up with four hits for this self-published book. Not even sold at amazon, which generally sells self-published books. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I take a very inclusive line on books so long as they are not self-published. In part, this is because I have "psychic" relatives who regularly self-publish absurd predictions, so I am familiar with the range of kooks who will pay for the "honor" of disseminating ideas this way. Basically, if you self-publish (at least after 1950), I assume that your ideas were denied a label for a reason. The four google hits, in this instance, support my assumption. Xoloz 08:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noirin Carmody[edit]

defamation attempt. 202.156.6.60 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attack page. So tagged. Friday (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 02:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard's factory[edit]

nn. 202.156.6.60 15:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Where the Heart Is - or into List of fictional companies. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge into Where the Heart Is, deleting any redirect. This articel does not enhance the encyclopedia in any way, and i don't belive that this fictional company is notable. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I don't see the harm in the redirect, and it does serve some encyclopedic purpose because someone might confront a reference to the company without knowing the context. This has happened to me more than once, and redirects helped. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Kzollman. --BorgQueen 07:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Qaz ^(talk) 05:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goon Door[edit]

non-notable drinking game at parties. Only occurences of the phrase as per Google as because the words also exist in Dutch. DS 15:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is fratcruft a term? Because it would seem to describe a lot of this non-notable stuff. --W.marsh 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D'elete 'NN ≈ jossi ≈ 20:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin macfadyen[edit]

nn. 202.156.6.60 15:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be a Speedy Delete criterion for this sort of thing? AndyJones 17:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy candidate; can any of this content be credibly verified? Hall Monitor 18:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a joke. If you look at the history, you can see that the porn films started out with jokier names than they now have.AndyJones

Agreed, but I will let someone else do the honors of introducing this article to the speedy wastebasket. Hall Monitor 23:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of course - it's a feeble joke. - DavidWBrooks 19:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above and AndyJones. Might even be meant as an attack page. Ilmari Karonen 01:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this obvious nonsense. [edit] 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android 79 16:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The History of ME[edit]

vanity. 202.156.6.60 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, keep. Rx StrangeLove 02:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hicks[edit]

nn bio. vanity. 202.156.6.60 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He appears to be an NCAA basketball player, that seems like borderline notoriety. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Now Delete per Barno, good points, I change my mind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unless there is a precedent for deleting articles about NCAA players. Hall Monitor 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of encyclopedic importance. At WP:BIO, the guideline for inclusion of athletes requires something like being outstanding, not just participating. There's no consensus about whether a routine professional player (as compared to an All-Star, All-Pro, league Most Valuable Player, etc.) should be kept. In general, one of the thousands of college basketball players is not notable, unless thousands of non-basketball-fans have heard of him. Article doesn't suggest anything close to meeting WP:Importance. Barno 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that WP:Importance doesn't require that non-fans have heard of him, only that "it is at least well-known in a community." While this individual may not be well-known on his own merits, I think that keeping his article because of his relationship with the University of Cincinnati is akin to keeping the article for a single episode or season of a television show because of their relationships with the overall program. ESkog 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting test of consensus. I would also go keep for members of major NCAA Division I sports teams. The University of Cincinnati is in the Big East conference and receives perennial national attention - this is a topic that many may look up, and it's verifiable. We don't require that thousands of non-Pokemon fans have heard of Snorloridiculomagon III or whoever. ESkog 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, professional athlete. Kappa 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Kappa, did you read the article? He's not a professional. He plays for a U.S. college team. NCAA athletes are prohibited from being paid. Quale 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh ok. Kappa 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I change my mind back to keep since NCAA athletes seem to get a lot of media attention. Kappa 08:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Barno, he's not even in the NBA. He can be added later when he at least turns pro. -- Kjkolb 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. as per Barno. Not even a professional. Also, not a super-star collegiate. Wait until he has a few more medals and badges, then get him an article (10 yrs down the road or so...)--Daniel Lotspeich 08:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is not vanity and kappa is right people might want to find this information on wikipedia and disk space is cheap so why erase it Yuckfoo 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 10:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

99 Bottles of Beer computer program[edit]

Computer source code which should be transwikied to Wikisource. We already have a 99 Bottles of Beer page, which is encyclopedic, but this content should not be merged there. -- Curps 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio from [10]. — mendel ☎ 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no transwiki, no merge. Not encyclopedic topic, just a dozen examples of a frequently-seen and undistinguished exercise in simple programming. Wouldn't be Wikisource material even if it weren't lifted from a non-GFDL source. Barno 20:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikisource has a whole repository of source code at Wikisource:Wikisource:Source code. See Flood fill example in C (AfD discussion) for what happened to an article similar to this. Uncle G 16:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikisource has a repository of noteworthy source code, as I understand it, which can be used in Wikimedia projects to illustrate something important to that subject as a somewhat authoritative reference. I agree that an example of flood-fill code in such a common language is useful for an article on flood fill as a (minor) data processing technique. I don't think I agree that a bunch of mini-programs to count down "99 bottles of beer on the wall" in various programming languages provides any useful illustration of any important concept. (If comparison of simple looping structures were critical to an article, I'd change my mind.) But I see this as a collection of minutiae, related only by a trvial detail, that probably won't help Wikisource support WP or a related reference. I didn't mean to suggest that no source code should be in Wikisource. Barno 18:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: The "what links here" function reports only the 99 Bottles of Beer page, the "see also" section of the similar (but at least expanded with some quasi-history) Hello world program page, and non-articles such as user pages and this AfD. If this page gave real context to a discussion in some other page about programming techniques, I'd be more inclined to see it as belonging here or at least in Wikisource. Barno 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice comparison of basic programming techniques to do something a little more complex than print "Hello world" on your monitor. I don't believe this constitutes a copyvio either - most of these programs are so generic that they could not be considered copyrightable, and this article does not bear any resemblance to the site which it is claimed is being violated. Denni☯ 03:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis of this Afd is that the content is not encyclopedic and should be transwikied to Wikisource. -- Curps 06:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia articles are not [...] collections of source material [...] such as source code". Uncle G 16:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki to Wikisource, assuming Denni is correct about the copyright issue. This is a nifty comparison. Crypticfirefly 04:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've transwikied it to Wikisource. Wikipedia is not a repository of source code. Delete. Uncle G 16:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this might be useful, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Delete since Uncle G has transwikied it to Wikisource. I tend to feel that code should appear in Wikipedia only if tightly integrated with an encyclopedia article; otherwise an external link to Wikisource is probably more appropriate.---CH (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once Uncle G's transwikification is complete. (I couldn't find it at Wikisource:Transwiki:99 Bottles of Beer computer program or Wikisource:99 Bottles of Beer computer program) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with something other. But its a good example after the Hello World one. helohe 16:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A transwiki having been done, leaving only a dicdef, the redundancy of keeping it here fails a cost/benefit analysis. The Literate Engineer 02:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factory zero[edit]

Notability not asserted in article. Simply stating subject is an architecture firm in Los Angeles. Willing to change vote if notability/significance is demonstrated. Hurricane111 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1, G2, A1. Vegaswikian 06:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteley Film Co[edit]

an "amateur film company". They have a website, but there's nothing to suggest they've made any significant films. I can't confirm existance of them, other than by their own website and their myspace page. Friday (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An "amateur film company" really needs to show why it is notable. Vegaswikian 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everyone has to start somewhere.Plus we get, on average, 1,000 hits a month. Nuff said WFCO 11:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Friday (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You need help. Wikipedia is meant to be a useful resource for people to find out anything they want to know and yet people like you are going round unnecessarily deleting articles for no other reason than to exert some sort of power over people. Wikipedia aren't exactly short on server space, Get a life. WFCO (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wfco (improperly signed above) appears to be a primary maintainer of this article. I doubt it's coincidence that the initials in his username happen to be the same of those of this film company. Friday (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm re-listing this to get more input. Friday (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there's no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence given of notability such as films distributed or participation in film festivals. Capitalistroadster 19:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent news coverage, no company history, no books, and no articles relating to this company. The only things that research turns up are Wikipedia, its mirrors, and self-promotion by the company itself. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, and this company fails to satisfy any of the WP:CORP criteria. Delete. Uncle G 21:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to User:Wfco's claims, Wikipedia is not "for people to find out anything they want to know"; there is a whole list of information that Wikipedia is not here to provide at WP:WIN. It is also not the correct place for people who "have to start somewhere" to start; Wikipedia is here to reflect notability, not to create it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Uncle G. As far as the web site, 1000 hits/month is pretty much immeasurably small. My (totally non-notable) home page gets about 4x that. MCB 00:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anteus. Wikipedia is about writing articles about notable people, things and concepts. It is not about advertising for non-notable things to help them become notable. --Johntex\^talk 09:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied all as vandalism. android 79 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zackary Clark[edit]

Part of a set of vanity/hoax pages (see also Z-Unitt, Zack Clark, Cruisin in my Taurus). Asserts notability, though claims are obviously bogus. Vandalism appears to be still in progress. Can this be speedy deleted, or do we just have to go through the whole AfD process? Ilmari Karonen 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to speedy this and all associated junk as vandalism. android 79 16:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln's Revenge[edit]

According to WP:MUSIC; entirely non-notable. Delete. SoothingR 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They do not meet the music guidelines. Friday (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A band who not only have yet to release their debut album, but according to this are still practising for their first-ever live performance in a bar. Well...inasmuch as Guelph does have an especially notable indie rock scene, I see no evidence that these guys are currently a major part of it. Delete, with the proviso that it can come back if the boys' album, when it is finally released, ever actually does break out the way Guelph bands tend to. Bearcat 18:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Would relist it, but it doesn't have a chance. -Splash^talk 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedæd[edit]

delete as neologism. Google does not know it (yet?) --Aleph4 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete I doubt this will be the most natural spelling when, some day, people need a word for this. — brighterorange (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bio static Systems[edit]

band vanity with no WP:MUSIC assertion or AMG hits. — brighterorange (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vanity article. Solarusdude 19:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stripcreator[edit]

Tagged for speedy, but tag was removed. Seems like just another web forum to me. R. fiend 17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a forum so much as it has forums; the core of the website is the comic-strip creator. That said, Alexa of 319313, and only 34 inlinks at Yahoo's Site Explorer, so delete nn. — mendel ☎ 20:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed the speedy tag, as it does not meet WP:CSD - still nn --Doc (?) 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout Shoppers[edit]

First album recorded in 2005, group does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC based on article. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worldscape[edit]

nn. 202.156.6.62 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable fan site. -- Kjkolb 02:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kjkolb. --BorgQueen 07:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom expectations and procedures[edit]

This sort of thing should be speediable. Anyway, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's appears to be a teacher using Wikipedia as a free web host for publishing xyr own rules, written in the first person, for classroom behaviour. Wikipedia is not a free web host. It's an encyclopaedia, and this is not an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Also, what's up with that red link at the bottom? Was the teacher really going to create another page there? We better look out for that. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, page created by someone who didn't realize what wikipedia was for. Kappa 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host. --Carnildo 23:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous noms. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --Metropolitan90 01:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Hall Monitor

Debbie Desham Delaura[edit]

appears to be attack ("genetically modified hybrid") 202.156.6.62 17:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attack page. Damn, is that a scary picture though. Can you imagine what the ones they didn't use are like? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since the article has been speedied but the picture remains, here it is for anyone who wants to see the scariness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been speedy deleted as per WP:CSD A6 (blatant attack page). Hall Monitor 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atalie Moore[edit]

Not verifiable, no source provided, likely hoax. Google query of "Atalie Moore" [11] yields 21 unrelated hits. --Vsion 17:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unreferenced probable hoax. Hall Monitor 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this might be a quasi-good faith but horribly mistaken attempt at a bio of a notable person, since I do remember a story about someone with somewhat similar history (African-American, female, born in Hawaii around 1900, kept out of Harvard, returned to Hawaii, was an activist), but the names are all wrong. Weird. I can't remember her real name. MCB 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Normally would relist with so little participation, but this hasn't a prayer and is barely an article anyway. -Splash^talk 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manthra[edit]

nn fancruft 202.156.6.62 17:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really 'cruft', but not really much of an article. Unless someone can create a decent article about it, delete. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Anon discounted as usual. The comparison by the only other keeper to Tiger Direct is considerably off-target as pointed out, and the nominator gets to join in since they started the debate. -Splash^talk 23:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterybyte Computers[edit]

nn. 202.156.6.62 30 September 2005

Keep. Deletion? I don't see this as needing to be deleted, I see it as no different from an article such as Tiger Direct or the like. It provides useful information about the retailer. Duff 21:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tell the difference between a multi-national Fortune 1000 corporation with assets of over a billion dollars which supplies governments and the military and was in papers internationally over a high-profile lawsuit, and a small-town computer reseller? -- Corvus

Delete. nn. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 69.249.8.194 15:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (Note: user's first edit)[reply]

Delete. Pure advertising. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. -- Corvus 22:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's worth mentioning that MysteryByte is considered the place to go for computer parts (and has a very strong following among the geek-elite) in the Halifax area. I've shopped there myself on several occasions, and while I don't know if there's enough content/relevance to justify an article, I can vouch that it isn't just some random never-been-heard-of store from Hicksville. -- Peruvianllama 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Starblind. -Splash^talk 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Grant[edit]

Patent Nonsense. CSD materials but author keeps removing CSD tag. Hurricane111 18:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as patent nonsense/attack page. Excerpt: "But oh well. in any case... OMAR SOUNDS LIKE A MAN WHORE." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HIM Productions[edit]

nn. 202.156.6.62 18:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, reads like an ad. Might want to protect it, as the author removed the AfD tag. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, yeah it has to be an ad. And yes I did use all caps, you got a problem with that? Private Butcher 19:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by DavidWBrooks. -Splash^talk 23:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio vento[edit]

non-notable dictionary term and incorrect translation too.Delete. SoothingR 18:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Services[edit]

nn. 202.156.6.62 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a sub part of a university which is not notable. It shouldn't be redirected because this is such a generic phrase likely to be common. As an aside, I think the norm is now to provide a more detailed description when nominating pages. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 18:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Kzollman. BorgQueen 07:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1369 Coffeehouse[edit]

This article was VfD'd on 9/1/04 by LeeHunter as non notable, deleted and recreated on 9/16/05. It's still just a coffehouse with no particular significance other than good coffee. No historical background I can find. I suggest delete and block as it's likely to be recreated again Outlander 18:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two locations! Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete smacks of vanity. Roodog2k (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tagged as recreation of previously-deleted content. Tito xd 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is somewhat notable in the Metro Boston area, though I don't see much point in it having an article -- what few notable coffeehouses there are are places like Demels in Vienna. No vote. Haikupoet 02:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete as single-person vanity.

Angie lee[edit]

NN ≈ jossi ≈ 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability), and Geogre's law. --Metropolitan90 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been speedied, and in fact had a speedy tag as A7. No need to bring to AfD. MCB 02:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So shall it be done. :) Speedy deleted. - Lucky 6.9 07:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apukaka[edit]

neologism. 202.156.6.60 18:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC) - or it can be a plain hoax. 202.156.6.60 18:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think it should be a speedy delete anyway, but whatever, just delete it. Private Butcher 18:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planith[edit]

Band substub, no claim to notability, fails WP:MUSIC. Might even speedy as A1/A3. Ilmari Karonen 18:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Article most likely considered an empty article anyway. If not, band is still nn in that case. Solarusdude 19:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band. Cnwb 01:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entity-Paradigm(EP)[edit]

NN bandcruft, fails WP:MUSIC. Article does not claim notability. Ilmari Karonen 19:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV article. Solarusdude 19:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV / NN band. Cnwb 01:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Dune (novel). -Splash^talk 22:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanly[edit]

Admitted dicdef of the term only used in Frank Herbert's Dune. 202.156.6.54 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current substub is not worth much, but there could be room for an article about this in Wikipedia. It is a somewhat important concept in Dune. Thue | talk 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dune (novel), in which the word is used. Doctor Whom 21:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Dune (novel) as per above. Roodog2k (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info into Dune (novel) as above, but only after rewrite. i belive the current text is an exact quote from the appendix of the novel, and as such would be a copyvio if it wern't so short that it is arguably fair use. Still, an exact quote should be indicated as such, and an article that is nothing but a singel quote and a source is undesireable -- indeed it might be subject to speedy delete uder WP:CSD A3. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm the user that added the description of Kanly. I would just like to ask what additional information would be required from myself to prevent this from being deleted? and what time limit I have to make additions before deletion. Also the member/user who posted above me raised a copyright issue, I would just like to point out that the source I used is the same that has been used for the Dune Terminology page here on wikipedia which is also copied word for word from the Dune novel. Here is the link to the page I am reffering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_terminology User:Garry_Johnston ^(talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.seatmaestro.com[edit]

non-notable and very much advertising Alhutch 19:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possibly a useful site, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Delete as not notable. Thue | talk 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a website that has so little traffic, it's off the bottom of Alexa's traffic counting. -Splash^talk 21:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apple-o[edit]

notability not established. 202.156.6.54 19:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. 20 Google hits for "apple-o delucia" (to avoid confusion with the unrelated Deerhoof album); no AMG listing. MCB 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MCB. BorgQueen 07:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as hoax. Thue | talk 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Omar[edit]

unverifiable & possible attack page. I notice this article had been tagged as nonsense but the author removed it. 202.156.6.54 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I tried to list this for deletion as soon as I saw it. no google hits on this person.--Alhutch 19:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy as hoax. Thue | talk 19:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Gaming[edit]

Not notable. Website doesn't even exist yet.

Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also looks like a vanity article. CambridgeBayWeather 19:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Alhutch 19:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bibble[edit]

Dictdef for an obscure neologism. Could not find any use in this sense by Google. Delete or, if found to be in actual use, transwiki to Wiktionary. Ilmari Karonen 19:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, (despite being 16 years old), neologism. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made-up word. -Splash^talk 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bo jeune-fille[edit]

Spam for [12] Dlyons493 Talk 19:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crap ad. Sliggy 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic.--Alhutch 20:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree w/ above.. -- SCZenz 20:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donpenny[edit]

Ad page. NN - Alexis rank 1,382,929 -- SCZenz 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's just a sickening ad. I'm tempted to nn-bio this since dumping an ad into Wiki is hardly an assertion of note. -Splash^talk 21:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking that we need an equivalent version of nn-bio (as a SD criterion) for companies/websites. I've put my views in a couple of places, but who knows if anyone will listen? -- SCZenz 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have listned, but I disagree on companies. Too hard to tell notable from non for a safe speedy criterion, IMO. DES ^(talk) 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I meant "enough people will listen to change something", not that nobody noticed. ;) One question for you, though: how is it harder/easier than with people, where the criterion is whether it has an assertion of notability? -- SCZenz 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We could impose that rule on coompanies. Except that most of even the spammiest company articles include statemetns that are at least arguably claims of notability. People become notabel through specific achievments, which arfe likely to be mentioned in any decent articel about an actually notable person. But companies are often notable as much for size and market presence as anything else, and IMO the presence or absnece of an assertion is noit a useful guide. The real question for a speedy criterion, IMO is "what obvious cahracteristic can we poitn to, that can be determined quickly by a single person, that will pretty much always identify an articel that ought to be deleted". If you think otherwise why not create Wikipedia:Proposal for speedy deletion of non-notable company articles or the like. i'll be happy to coem there and joint the discussion, and to call other people's attention to it. Look at the way the "Blatent copyvio" proposal was handled, and how it is going forward. DES ^(talk) 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, however, delete. And pending deletion, i have munged the link to not rewarrd linkspamming. DES ^(talk) 21:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vinkadecimal[edit]

Dictdef for a neologism, coined by the author of the referenced computer program after himself. Could not find any uses outside of the context of the program. Ilmari Karonen 19:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Vink has not invented the system "base 36". At best, he has invented the name "vinkadecimal". All n-ary systems (for any n>1) can be considered "known". --Aleph4 15:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. Base 36 (using 0-9, A-Z) is a common enough system, it's the silly vanity name I'm referring to. There's not much in the article that would be worth moving to generic base 36 article, so I suggest it just be deleted. Ilmari Karonen 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The proper name for this system would be sexatrigesimal, hexatrigesimal or hexatridecimal, depending on which mixture of Greek/Latin roots one wants to use. All get about the same number of Google hits. (See hexadecimal for more information about the Greek/Latin naming confusion.) Ilmari Karonen 17:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now created a proper article on base 36, since none existed yet. Feel free to improve it. Ilmari Karonen 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied A7/nonsense --Doc (?) 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Hoang: The Hero of the New Free World[edit]

An unencyclopedaic story- fan fiction? Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a speedy. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Too contextless even to be called a story. -- SCZenz 20:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per SCZenz.--Isotope23 20:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (I'm giving little value to the last vote by some anonymous contributor which has also worked on the article him/herself. I don't doubt that it's a genuine organization, the point being made is that it of such limited importance that it does not deserve an article here.) Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romanceromance[edit]

The article does not establish notability. Thue | talk 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further to the nomination, they are nn. Most of their 150ish useful Googles are link-ads around the web and a few don;'t seem to be relevant at all. Ideas above their station? Goodness, they'll be wanting an encyclopedia article next! -Splash^talk 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RomanceRomance is a genuine student art organisation, based in Norwich, UK. Searching RomanceRomance (one word) on google, RomanceRomance-the art organisation is the first result.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, non-notable person. Thue | talk 20:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history of ME[edit]

Vanity. 202.156.6.54 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . ≈ jossi ≈ 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABC D✉ 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geeknet.nl[edit]

Nn website ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 20:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one among 8billion+ websites. This one has no Alexa rank at all. -Splash^talk 21:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Splash --JAranda | yeah 21:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karate International[edit]

Non-notable bio, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jan wellendorf (despite that, it doens't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, right?) --Interiot 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corrent WP:CSD is only for articles about an individual person. But this "school" seems to lack any indication of notability. Delete. DES ^(talk) 21:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- More precisely, CSD A7 is only for real people. But there are other CSDs, and this is almost A1. -Splash^talk 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct, A7 is what I meant to say. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn karate club. -Splash^talk 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Sriram Rajagopalan[edit]

Wikipedia is not a HOWTO or FAQ. Thue | talk 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what appears to be a text dump of an email. I'm tempted to speedy it for being nearly unintelligible. -Splash^talk 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Tintin 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy junk =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN. -Splash^talk 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy F.X. Finnegan[edit]

Withdrawing this nomination - thought the page was a hoax but it's a fictional character! Apologies for any confusion. Dlyons493 Talk 20:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Rob e rt 23:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Vinegar[edit]

non notable band. they have yet to release their first album. 202.156.6.54 20:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls far short of criteria on WP:MUSIC. -- SCZenz 20:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SqueakBox 21:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nnandity. My crystal ball is broken, but WP:MUSIC is working just fine for me. -Splash^talk 21:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 01:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect to Mother of vinegar? Crypticfirefly 04:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as A7 --Doc (?) 23:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hollow[edit]

Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 20:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy Yu-gi-oh card player. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. A7 --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I skipped closing this at first since I participated, but then I closed the one on Candy Thrash (capital 'T') since I didn't participate. Given the debate, seems silly not to do the job properly. -Splash^talk 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candy thrash[edit]

a possible hoax. 202.156.6.60 20:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 24 unique google hits on "Candy Thrash" only 1 or 2 of which seem to be about the subject of this article. If it isn't a hoax, it must be pretty non-notable. Delete. DES ^(talk) 21:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DES. Most of the Googles are random adjacencies of the two words. Either it is far too new a term to come here, or it is just made up. -Splash^talk 21:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And sister article below. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Thrash[edit]

Delete. Yet another imaginary music subgenre. 24 Google hits. android 79 21:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only 24 unique google hits on "Candy Thrash" only 1 or 2 of which seem to be about the subject of this article. If it isn't a hoax, it must be pretty non-notable. Delete. Note realted AfD on Candy thrash. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I got 68 googles, but nearly all of them seemed to be "....candy. Thrash..." juxtapositions. Nothing there. -R. fiend 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And sister article above. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense.--MONGO 05:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP SHE IS A GREAT PORNO ACTRESS

Delete as sockpuppet-supported idiocy. - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. (Nom withdrawn after compelte rewrite of article) DES ^(talk) 04:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Reynolds[edit]

Mostly vanity and in-jokes, no sources, not notable. Example: Says he survived by sucking a pebble in the desert for weeks. Tempshill 20:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{subst:ab}}

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, either as speedy or copyvio. -Splash^talk 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gadi Singer[edit]

Why is this person worth having an article? Elf | Talk 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy NN bio, A7 speedy material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio anyhow from [13] Roodog2k (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mhave[edit]

The article begins by letting us know that there is some Great News!!!! about the company "mHave". It gushingly describes mHave's products, provides us with the company's website, etc., using all the usual corporate public-relations jargon. I think this is just an advert for a non-notable company.

Delete, to be explicit. Sliggy 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as blatant advertising. — brighterorange (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. web link munged to not appear in google searches, pending deleteion. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. -R. fiend 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont area[edit]

This article is nonsensical and completely useless MJ 21:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no context and so tagged. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent house[edit]

Spam for [14] Dlyons493 Talk 21:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Linkspam munged pending deletion. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Freaking spam is everywhere. --Hoovernj 21:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of English competitions[edit]

It's not at all clear what this list is for, or whether it is indeed an encyclopedic list worth keeping. Delete. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there must be similar competitions in other parts of the world, I should be able to find them in wikipedia. Kappa 22:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable list. And am I really voting delete in something that has to do with Academic Decathlon? Oh, the irony of it all! :P Tito xd 00:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "This list is incomplete". Do tell. This list is bloody near nonexistent, and not likely to grow any larger in any hurry. Denni☯ 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Kappa 03:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because despite its being created in July 2003 (and so more than two years for growth already) and having had the gentle ministrations of no less than eleven editors, it still has only one more competition than what it began with. Its edits have been almost entirely housekeeping edits, and for all intents and purposes, its content has remained unchanged since the Decathlon was added. Even being placed on AfD, which is often a kiss of life for weak articles, seems to have done it no good. As it stands, it is out-and-out useless since both items it lists already have stand-alone articles. While I have nothing against the idea of a good article on the topic, this is not it, and at its present rate of growth, is not likely to become it. Denni☯ 22:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - So anyone reading about the Spelling bee has no need to know about any similar competitions? Kappa 00:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Rob e rt 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of case sensitive English words[edit]

This list seems to be a blatant violation of Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. No encyclopedic content. Delete. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Might be encyclopedic if a discussion on how different words come to have the same or simialr spellings, and the list was used asn an illustration, or even if some analysis if the included words and their sources was presnet. (Besides several of the entries are currently incorrect: for example "see" in the sense of the seat of a Bishop's authority is capitalized only when part of a specific proper name, when discussed in general it is not.) DES ^(talk) 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I improved the intro. BTW, Holy See and similar are not proper names, as they can be precedeed by an uncapitalized article (i.e. "the Holy See"). Proper names are never precedeed by an article, unless the article is part of the name, in which case the article would be capitalized too. (E.g. A Clockwork Orange or The Cure.) --Army1987 17:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep interesting and maintainable. I don't understand the invocation of WP:WINAD, since it's hard to imagine a dictionary having such a list in it. Compare the excellent and useful List of words having different meanings in British and American English for what this could become with a little work. — brighterorange (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep but needs to be seriously worked and expanded.Hektor 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the sort of thing found in most dictionaries at all. Part of an encyclopaedia of language, which is clearly one of Wikipedia's roles. CalJW 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is moderately interesting, and eminently maintainable. It's just the kind of thing we can have in Wikipedia which Britannica wouldn't have. I don't agree with the WINAD point, since it gives no definitions. -Splash^talk 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quirky but interesting, and not likely to go on for too long... --MacRusgail 15:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Where else would you find this? Gary 15:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gert Jonnys[edit]

I couldn't find anything under WP:MUSIC, and although the article creator claimed that it may be notable as an internet meme [15], I only got around 1,000 hits on Google that were barely related and got nothing on Alexa. Karmafist 21:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable. Only 570 google hits for me. And absolutely zero Nexis hits. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well 241 unique google hits anyway. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-informational. --Hoovernj 21:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. I will let you decide. I don't know how you're searching but I get 4.100 google hits [16]. Indeed, they're not famous for their music. I have seen their funny pictures on several internet forums, blogs, etc. And their internet cult status have gained attention in Swedish and Norwegian newspapers [17] [18]. Norwegian students made a prank by placing two gnomes on the university building, one of which was painted inspired by Gert Jonnys clothes [19] (Entheta 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep It is a cultural and Internet phenomenon in Sweden. It is listed on the Swedish Wikipedia. We have millions of similar things about the US or the UK that we wouldn't delete because they seem relevant to many more of our users. But this article has value to people interested in Swedish popular culture and internet culture. I don't see the problem. Tfine80 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Entheta's reasoning (even though that was for an "undecided" vote CLW 06:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. In the future, consider a merge other Swedish "cult dance bands". // Fred-Chess 09:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tfine80 and CLW (and indirectly Entheta). -- Uppland 10:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not restricted to American groups of this kind.--Wiglaf 10:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tfine80. / Alarm 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dazed and Confused Drinking Game[edit]

Delete, unencyclopedic and cruft.--Zxcvbnm 21:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom MC MasterChef 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, where's my delete? This is not suitable for an encyclopedia; we have an article on drinking games though. --FOo 00:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this, it doesn't hurt anyone and it's all in fun. Lighten up.

Delete non suitable for wikipedia or any encyclopedia---71.28.243.246 17:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Historicism. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical narrative[edit]

Delete. There's no information in this article. Hoovernj 21:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Historicism until someone writes a real article on the subject. Jkelly 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no votes, so defaulting to keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halim[edit]

somebody tagged as speediable, probably it's not, so sent to afd Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Answers.com thinks it's misspelled, and Google thinks it refers to "Abdel Halim Hafiz" (an Arab singer). Andrew pmk | Talk 03:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DynamiContext™[edit]

Advertising, Non-notable. See also Kontera and AdLink. Sean 21:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advertisment. Vegaswikian 05:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising. Rob Church ^Talk 01:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kontera themselves were transwikied to Yellowikis and all the material from this article is there. Dlyons493 Talk 07:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article with ™ in the title. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AdLink[edit]

Advertising, Non-notable. See also Kontera and DynamiContext™ Sean 21:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Vegaswikian

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kontera themselves were transwikied to Yellowikis and all the material from this article is there. Dlyons493 Talk 07:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. -- DS1953 02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DB Banner[edit]

This character sounded fishy to me, so I checked and found not one page about this supposed son of Bruce Banner and Betty. Seems to be nothing but a fan creation. Kross 20:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Kross 05:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs; relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, I read it and it does not make sense. Maybe if it was rewriten, an editor reading the article would be able to see if it was notable. Vegaswikian 06:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not notable. Its a fan created character. Banner and Betty Ross have never had a kid.--Kross 06:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another useless, though mildly amusing trivia list. Delete. Postdlf 18:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Nothing wrong with this having this list. RickK 18:29, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's one of many lists of songs, which many Wikipedians find valuable. To date, it has received 388 contributions from 82 different registered users (i.e., not counting Docu or the many anonymous contributors). -- Jeff Q 18:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, lists of song trivia have been established as encyclopedic since the List of songs where the title does not appear in the lyrics case of March 2003 [[20]. - SimonP 20:07, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
It's an odd sort of list, but it seems like a reasonable enough thing to keep. FZ 20:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Cute and weird at the same time. I admit adding an entry to it a few minutes ago. I mean, how could anyone have missed "If I Fell" by The Beatles? Might be fun at parties. Tentative keep. - Lucky 6.9 00:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Et tu, Brute? ; ) So why delete the List of theme songs which mention their show in the lyrics listed above? So far consensus is to delete that article, which I can't distinguish in value from the one that is being kept here. Postdlf 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, if only for the sake of searchability and curiousity. Kaelus 06:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll be in the minority on this, I expect, but I vote delete. I wish we did have a Wikitrivia that could take all these daft lists. Average Earthman 13:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless, potentially useful. Haven't you ever put together a mix tape of "songs about trains" or "songs with curse words in them"? Jgm 23:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with brackets in their titles[edit]

List is becoming unmaintainable.

There is obviously thousands of songs with brackets in the title (official or not). Delete (unsigned comment from anon)
Keep What about all the other lists of songs. I think the list is a bit odd but someone may have a use for it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions. CambridgeBayWeather 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unmaintainable. Title is also misleading to some English speakers (particularly USians) -- the proper type of brackets is parentheses. Haikupoet 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless and unmaintainable list. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worse than trivial list. --nixie 05:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable, unencyclopedic listcruft. MCB 07:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MCB Xoloz 08:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about romance (including breakups). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete) as above --TimPope 11:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft. No one needs lists for everything. Punkmorten 22:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per previous vfd. Also invalid nomination by anon. Grue 16:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the previous VFD decided to keep the page, so why go back over old ground? I find it very interesting, and from the number of contributions we've had it's obvious that others do too. David 5000 18:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep when will you deletionists start doing something constructive like creating interesting pages, not deleting them? Unusual titles such as "All the Young Punks (New Boots and Contracts)", "Christmas Time (Don't Let The Bells End)", "(You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (to Party)" and "You Can Make Me Dance Sing Or Anything (Even Take The Dog For A Walk, Mend A Fuse, Fold Away The Ironing Board, Or Any Other Domestic Shortcomings)" are inherently interesting. Dmn € Դմն 18:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I advise you to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions too.
Keep. You're having a laugh, aren't you? If this page was worthless, it wouldn't have so many contributors. Besides, it's come up for deletion before and we voted to keep it. Deb 18:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous V/AfD. Too many contributors to be worthless. --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 18:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per previous VFD vote. -SocratesJedi | Talk 19:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous vote. I would have voted to delete this the first time (if I was around), but we have to live with old votes, otherwise every article can get renominated any number of times. Repeat AFDs are a waste of time. --rob 20:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Yes, this page wouldn't normally be in an encyclopedia (apart from it being a list), but I feel that it has been on this website long enough that it still deserves a place here (just to let you know where here is). Also, if you delete this list, all the other song lists are going to get deleted too. I don't think that should happen not only because I think they're interesting, but also because someone might need them for something. I know that I needed the List of protest songs page for a High School English project. So I feel that this page should be kept. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 22:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, harmless cruft. Weird that anyone could think this a strong keep, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not unmaintainable and obviously interesting to at least some people. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please why do people keep saying that lists are not maintainable we have been maintaining many lists for years already Yuckfoo 21:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep serves to satisfy the curiousity of others, while there is still other music lists, if this one goes, the others should too. lists of bands too should go to since they are useless with your definition.

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, even discounting redlinks. -Splash^talk 23:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad Search[edit]

Non-notable, possible link spam. Notability is not established. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's verifiable, who cares whether or not it's notable, if it's a useful tool? ··gracefool |☺ 07:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Importance, a proposed guideline that suggests that a criteria for notability be applied. It contains some food for thought on the issue, as does the WP:Notability non-policy. To play devils advocate, if usefulness is the criteria when notability is not established, then what would stop me from writing an article about a code metrics tool I developed that's used within my organization? It is not famous, but the people who use it find it very useful. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. Some amount of notability is important (excuse the pun). ··gracefool |☺ 22:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the WP:Notability page: "The word notable is often used as a synonym of 'unique' or 'newsworthy.'" Would you deny that coverage from the #1 site covering search is a legitimate secondary source about a search engine? There are many other pages where SearchEngineWatch is listed as a reliabe and trustworthy secondary source: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+searchenginewatch

··seobook |☺ 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC

Keep. It's a damn useful tool and although external links go to the site it isn't spam in the traditional sense of link spam on here. - Unsigned vote by 87.74.42.175
Keep. For disclosure purposes I am the person who created the tool. The tool was profiled in Search Engine Watch Myriad Search: Meta Search Your Way. Search Engine Watch is the top search information site in the world (search Google for search engine to see Search Engine Watch rank at or near the top). ··seobook |☺ 12:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC

User's 3rd edit

Needs more (non-sock) eyeballs. Relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Seoboook's evidence that it is taken seriously by a serious website. Kappa 22:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Chairboy, the SEW article not-withstanding. -- Kjkolb 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokeshine[edit]

Ad for non-notable site. --fvw * 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Non-notable web forum. Quale 00:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs; relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 589 Google hits, including some false positives (Pokeshine Lake), of which the Wikipedia article is #1. Ilmari Karonen 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serebii and Smogon aren't Wikipedia material; why on earth would some smaller forum be? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as nonsense --Doc (?) 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splak[edit]

Protologism, close to nonsense. Jkelly 22:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very close to nonsense. Maybe worth a speedy. Delete, anyway. -R. fiend 22:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 22:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Rob e rt 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Apex Tapes[edit]

nn interview CD Delete --Aranda56 23:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rare promo interview CD for a notable virtual band. I tried rewriting the copyvio. It's a tough choice but I'd say a weak keep. (Please note that the article was only 17 minutes old when it was placed on AfD.) --Andylkl ^(talk) 08:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with the album/band article --Vsion 06:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Gorillaz are notable and so are their releases. --WindFish 03:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyballs; relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WindFish or merge with Gorillaz. Ilmari Karonen 23:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Promotional release by notable band, will almost certainly be a collector's item. Cnwb 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Coon[edit]

possible vanity page.He garnered no unique hits from google Deyyaz 23:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and only a single sentence substub. Already mentioned in the article on the Colchester Theatre Company which he founded. Nothing to merge, and no redirect needed. Quale 00:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Quale, or redirect. Founding year was not mentioned in Colchester Theatre Company, merged. Ilmari Karonen 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez. The target already talks about this person, so need to actually merge. -Splash^talk 23:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

José López Falcón[edit]

Could this be A7? nn Delete --Aranda56 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and remove the link from Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez so that no-one tries making an article again. This guy was a "backup" cosmonaut, dont think we need articles on 'backups' Astrokey44 04:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez (and remove the self-link), unless the article can be fleshed out (in which case weak keep). Ilmari Karonen 23:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bolt[edit]

I like the visual design of his website, but I think he doesn't meet WP:BIO. The only claimed notability is as a filmmaker but I can't find him on IMDB. There's no indication in the 2-sentence article of any notable work, or any work at all, actually. Quale 22:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article currently stands. No IMDb listing, no filmography provided, no assertion of notability. Hall Monitor 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. *drew 00:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 10:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mountain Camp[edit]

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. And the same for the rest of these articles. Vegaswikian 06:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Cabins Camp for reasoning. — Dan | Talk 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since there are a bunch of these articles up for nomination - all for the same reason, is there a way we can merge all discussions under one AFD? It would certainly make it easier to keep track of the debate. Solarusdude 04:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus Karmafist 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's Fork Camp[edit]

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. --Woohookitty 10:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable camp. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)javascript:insertTags('--L1AM 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)',,);[reply]

Keep the information this article could provide is too much to be merged into any one article. 700,000 people have been to Philmont so while this camp may not be 'notable' or famous, the information the article could provide is valuable and worth retaining.--L1AM 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- but maybe move? Per L1AM & Solarusdude

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Karmafist 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Creek Camp[edit]

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable in these articles, nor is it verified. The best solution would be to just un-link from Philmont Scout Ranch. Not every campsite needs an article. --Blackcap | talk 06:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting. Not enough votes. --Woohookitty 10:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable camp. — JIP | Talk 11:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- but maybe move? Per L1AM & Solarusdude
Delete as per Blackcap, and unlink the camps and other non-notable things in that article. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [List of Philmont camps] and redirect (or keep). --SPUI (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all of the linked things such as this one, if the current main article allows . Otherwise, keep. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and fix the problem by removing all of the red links in List of Philmont camps and replacing them with bolds. Vegaswikian 06:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and their brothers too. Denni ☯ 08:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blackcap. Xoloz 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 speedied by DavidWBrooks --Doc (?) 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swedanese[edit]

Not very amusing joke. 31 Google hits. Dlyons493 Talk 22:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Swenglish, if there's anything salvageable. Ilmari Karonen 22:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jkelly 22:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted - a feeble joke that shouldn't take up server space any longer. - DavidWBrooks 22:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as nonsense --Doc (?) 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helicoptering[edit]

More nonsense from the Swedanese IP address. Dlyons493 Talk 22:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a serious attempt at an article. No objection to speedy. Kappa 22:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Sasquatcht|c 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial fall[edit]

Band substub, no claim of notability. Borderline speedy candidate. Ilmari Karonen 22:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus after nearly a month. Rx StrangeLove 04:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moxoene[edit]

Is there any independently verifiable source info for this article?? Every Google hit refers to the Wiki entry here. Merge to Armenia if we must but I say Delete unless someone can come up with something a little more concrete. Eddie.willers 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be the same as Moxene here: [21] Kappa 23:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough eyeballs, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can at least verify that "Moxoene" is the old name of a region in Armenia. It appears in Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Chapter 13). Crypticfirefly 04:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 04:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parenticide[edit]

An unnecessary and unimaginative neologism, loaded up with pop-psychology piffle. DavidWBrooks 20:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this suggests its been in Websters since 1913. I presume an article can be written about this, so keep. Splash^talk 23:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and NPOV. It's not a neologism, according to the OED the word has existed in English since the mid-17th century. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

&Keep, cleanup, and de-POV it as per Angr. Sadly there's enough notable examples of this for an article to be justified. 23skidoo 04:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either Merge with "Patricide" or move to "Parricide", which is the proper term, not "Parenticide"! --MacRusgail 12:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid, though obscure, term. --WyldStallionRyder 14:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MathMartin\Newton polynomial[edit]

Appears to be a copy of Newton polynomial with a nonsensical title. Not even worth a redirect; no one is going to search for or link to "MathMartin\Newton polynomial". Psychonaut 22:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failed attempt at creating a user subpage, moved to User:MathMartin/Newton polynomial. Ilmari Karonen 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ilmari Karonen is correct. The page was a failed attempt to create a user subpage. The page is no longer used and can be deleted. MathMartin 15:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Rob e rt 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Dr)[edit]

non notable halo gaming clan -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just delete --Doc (?) 23:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful as a redirect. -Splash^talk 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn nonsense Anetode 23:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why do gamers act as if they belong in a reference work? These are the questions I ask myself. Myself votes d3l33t3. - Lucky 6.9 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire, Nuke out of orbit, or anything else that can be translated as delete. Tito xd 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frag it. Gaming clans have to meet the same notability standard as everything and everyone else. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then delete. feydey 15:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Comedy film, content is already there. -Splash^talk 23:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adult comedy film[edit]

This isn't really a genuine film genre. Seems to be inspired by the release of The Wedding Crashers. JW 22:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Comedy film under the 2000s section of the timeline. It's not really even much of a sub-genre, more of a buzzword for capturing older demographics with comedy films. Still there's a trend in the media of mentioning the term [22] and there's an increasing rate of R-rated comedies coming out. Anetode 23:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Anetode. :) — RJH 19:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allfon[edit]

SpamDlyons493 Talk 23:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — advertisement. — RJH 19:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED per the nominator's remarks. -Splash^talk 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mydieter[edit]

Nonsens. About a group of young people devoted to clean the underground of Schermbeck from impurities in the bacteria comunity (?). -guety is talking english bad 23:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, then, now that a German-speaker has confirmed this as nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 23:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABC D✉ 08:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlending[edit]

Spam for mortgage sitesDlyons493 Talk 23:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unkeeping. I removed the links as they were pure advertising. The terms gets all of 30 useful Googles and very few, if any of them, use the term in this way. So we have WP:V problems for a start, possibly WP:NOR problems in the middle and WP:SPAM problems to finish. -Splash^talk 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertising Pete.Hurd 22:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The links were put in place to reference the practice of the definition. That is why the links are to competing organizations. Derek Tamura October 6 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABC D✉ 08:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marleys Dead[edit]

Typical $@$#@ band vanity created by an account whose sole purpose, it seems, was to spam this site. I really want to speedy this one, but rules is rules. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No allmusic.com presence, only 30-odd useful Googles and at least a number of those have the obvious alternative meaning, no suggestion they meet any part of WP:MUSIC. All the usual really. -Splash^talk 23:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are too many compulsive deleters!!!
- There are also too many sockpuppets weighing in on this and other unknown Canadian bands on VfD as of late. Suggestion to socks: Try reading the rules of what goes on Wikipedia and what doesn't. Also, try establishing user accounts if you really want to contribute. - Lucky 6.9 22:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-verifiable, Vanity page. -- Corvus 17:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --JAranda | yeah 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABC D✉ 08:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Werken[edit]

Elaborate hoax - nothing in Google on this NeilN 23:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we ask the author to verify his sources before we delete it? Ben D. 23:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, he posted a link to an obviously fake picture at: Http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v211/dragonar/jameswerken.jpg Ben D. 23:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author has all the time they need in the 5 days of the AfD. We don't need to wait around for them. -Splash^talk 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete silly hoax. Did the concept of "negativity" exist then, and did kids have attitudes? Please. -Splash^talk 23:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pull my finger[edit]

(no vote). Someone tagged, but not listed. mikka (t) 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, well known prank. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoary old prank. No expandability. -- Grev -- Talk 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. That particular meme isn't endemic around here, and I find it rather perplexing. An explanation of how it came to be and why it persists could be interesting. Ilmari Karonen 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bill Clinton in Beavis and Butthead. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Traditional prank. Crypticfirefly 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known, has references in popular culture. Punkmorten 22:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dicdef, nothing of real interest here. And why's it a psychology stub? ---MacRusgail 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fact, the reference to "pull my pudwhacker" should be re-added to this page.

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl W. Richter[edit]

Non notable? Andy Mabbett 14:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup: going by Google hits, looks reasonably notable. But the fannish tone needs neutralising. Tearlach 12:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Never heard of the fellow myself but there seems to be a goodly amount of unique Google hits on him, not to mention at least one (possibly two?) books have been written about him. Passes the notability bar for me, but needs definitely cleanup and wikifying. 23skidoo 04:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only 56 unique Google hits for every single "Karl W. Richter" who has ever existed in the world. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, but only a minority of sites use his middle initial. A Google on "Karl Richter" MiG gets over 2500 hits, mostly about him. Tearlach 12:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability in the article. Martg76 22:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zombina and the Skeletones[edit]

Does not meet standard for musical ensemble article inclusion DarbyAsh 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - DarbyAsh 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no Allmusic entry. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I personally like the name. Xoloz 08:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete What standards are not being met? Pan 18:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --JAranda | yeah 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alrighty then. Pan 02:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

September 30[edit]

Monroe mann[edit]

Ping972[edit]

By a Thread[edit]

Chili powder (color)[edit]

Feldspar (color)[edit]

Fire brick red[edit]

Fire engine red[edit]

Metallic Rose[edit]

Olive-yellow[edit]

Pale gray-red[edit]

Persian Sunset[edit]

Pink-cerise[edit]

Red-pink[edit]

Raspberry (color)[edit]

Rose (color)[edit]

Sphaerocobaltite (color)[edit]

Terra cotta (color)[edit]

Tomato (color)[edit]

Starsomething[edit]

Demonic Boppu[edit]

Syntax Error (webcomic)[edit]

Vercvactor[edit]

Arvind Vaz[edit]

Fox & Apple[edit]

St. Anne School (Seattle, Washington)[edit]

Dr. Devious vs. Lincoln High[edit]

Film Presentation[edit]

Dan dings[edit]

The All-American Good Looking Guys[edit]

My Big Fat Pizza Party[edit]

Sayyid Ahmad Shaheed al-Hasani[edit]

Petrea Burchard[edit]

Musclebear[edit]

Jamil al Banna[edit]

Rube Chat[edit]

Betrayal[edit]

The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song)[edit]

Do You Know Where You're Going To? (Theme from Mahogany) (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Sunrise Medical[edit]

Meatspin[edit]

Lim_Peh_Oh[edit]

Angry Zen Master[edit]

Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Zededarian[edit]

Ellis Hollins[edit]

Frycookonvenus[edit]

Pie2k[edit]

Terminator 4[edit]

List of songs in movie trailers that are not in the movie[edit]

List of hidden tracks[edit]

Philliesphans.com[edit]

Bengbu Public Security Bureau[edit]

Divorce in Washington State[edit]

Mater Hades[edit]

Gfxtreme[edit]

Joy to the World (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Pump It[edit]

Naples post office explosion[edit]

2010 in film[edit]

Bumblesnap chess[edit]

Free derivative work[edit]

Phr0zed[edit]

Robots 2 (2010 film)[edit]

Daisy Angus[edit]

Rhodaism[edit]

Developed economy[edit]

Ola Vista Records[edit]

The Murder of Rosa Luxemburg[edit]

Znode[edit]

Introduction to Electronics[edit]

Alabama Ass Whuppin'[edit]

"new age bible and philosophy center"[edit]

The United States Of America Patriot Act[edit]

MEANING OF JOBS[edit]

ITOK[edit]

Xenosaga Script[edit]

Benzie Playboyz[edit]

Jaded Dragons[edit]