Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 4 November 6 >

Purge server cache

November 5[edit]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Μαυρομάτι[edit]

Greek. Hass been on WP:PNT since October 21. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 11:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, its two weeks on WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Babelfish translation suggests that this article is about a village but does not have content worth transwikiing to the Greek Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 15:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom and Angr. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
Sorry, I forgot to do this yesterday! Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 10:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be the creator's village and is very beautiful. Possible afd candaidate anyway. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:38, 30 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Speedy delete' . -Doc ask? 23:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Stark[edit]

Nominate for speedy deletion as G1 patent nonsense, A1 no context, and A7 no assertion of notability. Alternatively, delete as NN. - Sensor 23:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Discounting the sock puppets, there are 10 keep votes and 2 delete votes. — JIP | Talk 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefman[edit]

The original debate was irreparably tainted by partisan political attacks. I've closed it and am resubmitting on procedural grounds for a clean, untainted discussion. My own preference in the original debate was to keep, but as this is a procedural nomination this time, I will not cast a vote. However, in light of what happened in the first discussion, I will lay down the following: unsigned anonymous votes are explicitly forbidden this time out. Bearcat 09:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, somewhat notable politician. Cleduc 09:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cleduc. —Cleared as filed. 09:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - combination of what he's done, puts him over the fence barely. --rob 10:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cleduc. - Sensor 13:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNot notable, posted by Alan Shefman’s son (pm_shef) with an attempt to use as a political tool, use to pursue his political agenda and to use as advertising for his so called company. Does not meet the criteria to be an article, most high-power or high-profile position he held was/is as city councillor in a small city which I understand does not meet the criteria, in addition he was only a city councilor for a very short period of time (less than a year). Position as a “director” within government is even a lower-power or lower-profile than the city councilors position as at any given time there are over 200 people with a directors title. Appears to have false information posted. No other councillor posted from such a small city. User:eyeonvaughan 5 November 2005 (Note: User's second contribution ever under this username.)
    • Having an article in Wikipedia is hardly a formidable political tool. Cleduc 00:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This guy is not very notable, but the article is not PoVish and most or all of its info is verifiable http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/vaughan/council/ward5_profile.cfm FRS 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Vaughan is becoming bigger and bigger, so maybe it has reached the point where its councillors are notable? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable civic politician. --YUL89YYZ 23:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. He is only a city councillor. -- Kjkolb 00:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete city council men are not notable --JAranda | watz sup 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all city council members, aldermen and other elected officials are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All city council members, aldermen and other local elected officials are not inherently notable, even within their own jurisdictions. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think precident for most city councillors (e.g. consensus to delete) precident agrees with you. But I think there is more basis for keeping than just an "auto-keep" for councillors. Keeping this person is no precident for keeping all city councillors (as Bearcat properly said in the last AFD, but was drowned out due to noise) . --rob 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A number of semi-notable positions, including national ones, add up to be sufficient. Chick Bowen 03:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not even close to be notable Sweet-as-suger 05:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This account was created today, with a high sock-puppet index. Cleduc 08:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't count anyway I think, as he has not got a significant numebr of edits?--Alicejenny 08:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapid Keep Inaccuracies and POV in an article are grounds for fixing it, NOT deleting it. Should remain if he is in any way notable. A quick Google and reading of press-coverage shows he clearly is - or at least more so than many individuals with articles. I would imagine that anyone intereted in the politics of this region would find this article (once it is fixed) a valuable resource. Arguments addressing anything other than notability (e.g. identity of editors) do not bear on deletion.--Alicejenny 08:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--64.231.173.130 09:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Socko --Alicejenny 12:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible sockpuppet; user's only contributions to date have been on AFD votes. Bearcat 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer seeing city councillors in a group article like Vancouver City Council, say Vaughn city council, 2003-2006 which could include major background notes (like serving on the Vaughn school board - relevant to city council) as well as council activities. Unless, the councillor is notable for doing something outside the council, like David Cadman winning a UN peace prize. So...um...vote. --maclean25 10:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alias Unbound[edit]

Googling on "alias unbound" gives 8 hits, the only relevant ones of which are WP mirrors. "Privately written" equates to "fanfic" in my book. All in all, it looks like deletion fodder. Anville 18:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anoš[edit]

I originally listed it for cleanup, where the response was: Dubious: not only proving unverifiable, it also falls well below the criteria for notability of bands. So unless proven otherwise, delete. - Mike Rosoft 01:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons. Tearlach 03:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Charles Jenkins[edit]

vanity bio; publications noted are self-published ERcheck 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable self-published author. Only references to subject are his website, and his store [1] which sells his book. Unlikely to meet Wiki criteria for notable author. The reference on Amazon.com points back to his online store, lulu. ERcheck 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. per nom. -- WB 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. --Edcolins 16:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-publishers can be notable, but with a Lulu Sales Rank of 6,621, it's pretty clear this one isn't. Only a handful of Lulu authors are notable. Unfortunately this one isn't. For future reference, some are in the process of securing deals with traditional publishers, so checking for that may be a good idea when investigating authors like this. - Mgm|(talk) 19:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcane Knights of the Apocalypse[edit]

http://www.akaelite.net/ Alexa rank less than 100,000. No incoming wikilinks. Delete -- Perfecto Canada 04:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baron von Brunk[edit]

Strictly procedural nomination; AFD tag was slapped on the article by an anon user who didn't bother to formulate an actual AFD. Most likely newbie error. I think this may very well be deletable as a badly written vanity page, but officially I'm taking no position. Bearcat 07:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Not notable internet personality 244 Ghits some from wiki mirrors Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN vanity. Alexa has no traffic rating for the website.
  • Delete. Para 1 says it all: "Who is this guy?" - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes no clear assertion of notability. - Pasiphae 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 01:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly written. Leave open for re-creation if he really is note-worthy. (I've never heard of him.) --Billpg 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: An anonymous user removed the AFD tag from the article earlier today. Please monitor the article for possible future edits of this type. Bearcat 03:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bc radio history[edit]

Non-notable website advert. — ceejayoz talk 17:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 17:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT a web directory. Delete. -- Karada 17:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jnothman talk 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand why this is being deleted. It was listed for AfD 1 minute after being created. In less than 30 minutes it has become the start of... well, BC radio history. Oddly enough.--Bookandcoffee 17:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising for a website. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this article doesn't seem to be intended to be a website advert, its just a history article thats very poorly formatted TastemyHouse 19:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It started as essentially an advert. Now, it appears to be a copyvio. My vote remains delete, though the reason has now changed. — ceejayoz talk 19:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, (cough). Yeah, that would be copyvio wouldn't it :) Delete. --Bookandcoffee 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio + the history of radio in British Columbia isn't somehow more notable than the history of radio in Ontario, Utah, Michigan, Quebec or any other state or province that doesn't have its own dedicated article on the history of radio within that particular state or province. History of radio in Canada would be fine; history of radio within an individual province is not. Delete. Bearcat 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be Buon Lam Ben Nay[edit]

Vietnamese. Seems to be song lyrics or poem. Has been on WP:PNT since October 22. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 11:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete should it be a lyric/poem. *drew 12:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be good if somebody could translate it - even then though, it should probably be transwiki'd Dlyons493 Talk 12:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasspeedily redirected by Just zis Guy, you know?. —Chick Bowen 03:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best & Company[edit]

There already is an article about this company, here--> Best Products. I do not think any of the content here is mergeable, except maybe on ebay. Davidrowe 08:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Best Products. Cleduc 09:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cleduc. And speedily so, as the text in this article is unsalvageably incoherent! - Sensor 20:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. What's there is hopelessly unencyclopaedic - why don't we just do the needful? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bettiscombe[edit]

All that stuff about personal experience should be deleted. Does anyone know if the village of just 63 people even exist? Kilo-Lima 12:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: Google Maps get nothing --Kilo-Lima 12:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as verifiable stub on an English village.. Google maps (which seem to stop at New Jersey) notwithstanding, streetmap.co.uk has heard of it. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now removed the ghost story (was it coincidence that that was added on Hallowe'en, I wonder) and reverted it to the stub as last edited by Grutness. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...and added a map and some NPOV about the legend, which is widely verifiable on Google. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hardly rewrote it, just deleted a long personal anecdote! Tonywalton  | Talk
Comment; that's right, but the sentence you added about the ghost story is really NPOV and encyclopedic. A small but good edit. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found a reference to the place in mapquest [2]. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as real place with real communities of interest. Well done to Tony Walton for cleaning it up. Capitalistroadster 17:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real settlements. CalJW 17:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all real places are notable. Carioca 22:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Poppa E[edit]

vanity and heavy POV

      • Keep after rewrite. on the website, there are numerous legitimate press articles and references. this poet has obviously done a lot of notable work, and people might need to research this guy. i am not sure why that is not obvious. check out the press library on www.bigpoppae.com for this info. i say keep it.
  • Delete per nom. - Keryst 03:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per FHS' rewrite. A closer look at his homepage (esp college tours) reveals probable notability Keryst 21:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, establishes notability. Kappa 03:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless NPOV'd during Afd.
    • Feel free to edit the article. Kappa 04:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I'd prefer to see it deleted but, if anyone wants to rescue it, that's fine by me. Are the books actually published [3] Chapbooks are typically self-published ephemera. Dlyons493 Talk 04:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiablity and some degree of significance are established. I see lots of name dropping, but not much indication that this is anything but vanity. Friday (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's notable and article asserts that. He has 5 published books and 2 albums, and been mentioned by various national media sources. Add NPOV or cleanup tag and rewrite. I might try to rewrite if no one else does during the AfD. --W.marsh 04:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the TV appearances and whatnot are real and significant, I could change my mind. I just notice that the alleged shows he appeared on don't even have articles. If the show isn't significant, surely one particular guy who appeared on it isn't significant either? If he's been one of many participants in events that got media coverage, that's pretty different from him getting significant media coverage himself. Friday (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno about the 60 minutes reference (which would be pretty notable), but I did find this, he's been reviewed in the NY Times, LA Times, etc. it seems. --W.marsh 04:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An Amazon search for Big Poppa E failed to come up with anything relevant see [4]. A Google search comes up with 777 results but nothing particularly helpful see [5] and Google News fails to come up with anything. I doubt that he quite meets our notability guidelines for poets. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -R. fiend 15:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I edited out most of the PoV and feel enough is left that the subject is not nn enough to delete FRS 17:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as well. Found info on HBO's site for Def Poetry here.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. —Cleared as filed. 12:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasdelete. DS 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Left Pinky[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC standard L3TUC3 10:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwood and Back - The Dream Mile[edit]

Delete. This is either OR (original research) or a COPYVIO (copyright violation). At any rate, it is definitely not an encyclopedic entry about a music album. If someone wants to write a real Wikipedia article about this album, it can be re-created. This one needs to be removed. DanMS 04:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • del. Per nom. -- WB 06:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, OR, etc. - Sensor 13:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to The Daily Show. Robert T | @ | C 01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bongistan[edit]

Fictional country that only appeared in part of one segment on The Daily Show. Already included in -stan under "Parodic, fictional, and cultural -stans". All of the information about its geography is inferred and is never mentioned by word in the show (a map with the country was shown). Simply, it doesn't merit its own article.. -Nameneko 22:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted. DS 14:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BSOD - Blue Screen Of Death[edit]

irrelevant link to some private HP Harald Kliems 02:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau of Anomaly Investigation[edit]

Fictional organization in the "privately written" (unverifiable) crossover series nominated above. Anville 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 03:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caldicot Comprehensive School[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Schools covering ages 16-18 are notable, at least to me. — RJH 17:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep like all the others. I've categorised it. CalJW 17:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have other schools articles. Carioca 23:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, it's got 6 blocks, a head teacher and a nearby park. I don't see anything that warrants an article here. Delete (or merge to whatever school district this falls in). - Mgm|(talk) 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keep. Seems like a clear merge candidate (as this is demographic info only), but in the exceedingly unlikely case of a consensus to delete, that would be okay, too. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your recent less confrontational approach. Kappa 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never really objected to a merge solution; I just should have been making it clearer. Of course, ideally I'd like to see a transwiki to a license-compatible school-coverage wiki, but, in the absence of one, that's not an option. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I don't think it's a good idea to merge British secondary schools, especially when the article explains its function in the local community (Leisure centre). Kappa 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school --JAranda | watz sup 02:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 07:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can remember someone discussing a year-old school stub in AFD recently (don't remember the link). To me that shows, that separate stubs are just as hard - if not harder- to find to editors. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepHipocrite - «Talk» 12:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. There is no consensus at all to delete high schools, as is illustrated by Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive. Merging this article is not a viable option. Silensor 23:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean and expand per the developing consensus at WP:SCH's talk page. HS's should be kept unless patently false or unverifiable.Gateman1997 18:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand it too please Yuckfoo 01:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete makes no claim for notability Pete.Hurd 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. The mere fact of something's existence warrants its inclusion. Kurt Weber 21:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChaytorFamilyTree[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and genealogies are explicitly mentioned in that policy. There is no attempt to assert the notability of any of the people invovled, either. rbrwr± 14:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. — brighterorange (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Clark[edit]

Vanity page, non-enclyclopedic

  • Delete. There are no links to this page and the article does not cover salient biographical attributes, anyway. Nicholasink 20:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No encyclopedic material, but it was fun to read. Punkmorten 20:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. PJM 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable bio. ERcheck 22:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedied as nn-bio. — brighterorange (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claire's Unnatural Twin[edit]

Nominate and delete as NN vanity, does not meet WP:MUSIC. - Sensor 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity non-notable...Dakota t e 22:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. feydey 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another NN band vanity. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep may not be known in the US, but they're moderately notable here in New Zealand, although not as much so as White's former band Lung. I've added a little more info. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two albums and media coverage. Thanks Grutness. Kappa 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, notable in New Zealand. Punkmorten 09:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Turner (Alias Unbound)[edit]

Charmed character appropriated by NN fanfic Alias Unbound, which isn't doing too well itself in the deletion voting. Anville 23:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current events by country[edit]

Seems obsolete by {{Current events articles}} (t/l) -- Zondor 15:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted as nonsense and an attack on a historical event. - Mgm|(talk) 23:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas tariff[edit]

  1. Per G1 as patent nonsense, as it is clearly "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." The Dallas Tariff was indeed a real historical event in 1816, involving Henry Clay. It was basically a protectionist tariff, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with dead babies.
  2. Per A6 as disparagement, as this article seems to have been created in bad faith to insult a historical event. Someone created a wikilink to the Tariff in the Henry Clay article, which has been the target of a heck of a lot of vandalism recently. Why do I have a feeling that someone failed their history test because of the Dallas Tariff and is lashing out at their teacher?

If not speedy candidate, then just plain delete as ridiculous japery. - Sensor 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No connection with reality. - Pasiphae 21:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy if humanly possible. Gibbering idiocy. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly please. nonsense (chilling). a note: doesn't resemble the other contribs by the same anon ip..Dakota t e 22:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I will always assume good faith on Wikipedia, differing IPs don't mean anything. It could have been a coordinated effort, or dynamic IPs, or whatever. Anyway, I don't really care why this article was made; it needs to be deleted real quick-like. - Sensor 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD category G1 as nonsense. A good article could be written about this topic but this isn't it. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Daniel Brandt[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Linuxbeak | Talk 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's sidenote: I have taken a look into a lot of these votes that were for the deletion. It's Brandt. This VFD was made in bad-faith and Brandt himself won't take "it's not going to be deleted" for an answer. Well, tough. It's staying. Linuxbeak | Talk 05:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Brandt[edit]

subject is non-notable Strangeland 23:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: nominator's first edit (I'd bet it's Brandt himself) Broken S 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps ever speedy keep - he's as notable as much of the crap here Doc ask? 23:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - A good thing this article is presented to AFD so it won't happen again. -- Svest 23:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of (verifiable) notability in article. Subject of article does not want this entry in Wikipedia. See article history and blog entry concerning his attempts to have deleted. Doesn't meet speedy delete criteria for deletion request by author. ERcheck 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination for deletion. Subject of article, as well as his creation Namebase, is definitely notable. - Sensor 23:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme "Database of Enemies" Keep. How will we know who Google or Wikipedia hates without this article? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not speedy. If we speedy keep it will give him more ammunition. Broken S 23:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both notable and verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/merge with Google Watch. To the extent that Brandt is notable it seems to be largely because of Google Watch, which I don't think is notable enough in itself to justify an entry on its (co)founder. Nor does the rest of his bio or activities seems all that notable. Much of the GoogleWatch-related material will have to be merged into Google Watch anyway, which will lead to substantial duplication. Brandt's antagonism with Wikipedia over this article should not substantially affect our judgement on whether he is notable; but the fact that Brandt does not wish to have a Wikipedia entry should not either lead to the perverse judgement that that opposition in itself is enough to justify keeping it. Rd232 talk 23:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to weak keep after more sources on notability outside GoogleWatch (see article). Rd232 talk 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he was just the founder of Google Watch, I'd vote delete or merge. But he has a lengthy history of activism which has been covered at various points by important publications, including the New York Times. A minor figure, but a public figure nonetheless, and certainly more notable than many of the random professors who end up with article stubs. Gamaliel 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per bad faith nom. --Isolani 00:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as has been noted above, see his desire to not have a wikipedia page on himself, considering it an invasion of privacy [6] jnothman talk 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A person who does not wish to be a public figure probably should not talk to reporters from the New York Times. Gamaliel 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone else, especially in light of likely bad-faith nomination. Kudos to Brandt for finally trying to work within the system, though, rather than simply going straight to Jimbo and throwing legal threats around. Note that precedent for keeping articles like this abounds: Ashida Kim has survived two AfDs in the last two months.--chris.lawson 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...... the Wikipedia page about Brandt focuses mainly on draft dodging, Google-Watch, and Brandt's enemies. Because of this, a good case could be made in court that, unlike a magazine article, something like Wikipedia that carries the gravitas of a REAL encyclopedia (at least in some naive readers' minds) can perform a spin-doctoring sort of character assassination by focusing almost entirely on these negative things. I don't think he is going to EVER going to let go of this, so it might behoove Wikipedia to honor his request to delete the page, and save everyone involved a lot of B.S. down the road. This "he's a public figure and so we should be able to print whatever we want about him" line makes it sound like you people think you're reporting for a muckracking newspaper, not editing an encyclopedia. (Of course, an encyclopedia is supposed to be a definitive reference work, and how can you have a definitive reference work whose pages get completely rewritten twenty times a day, by anyone and everyone, from preteens to the mentally ill?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.217.117 (talk • contribs)

(This appears to be a Brandt sockpuppet again, jucifer 06:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

    • Excuse me, Jucifer, but just who the fuck do you think you are? You've continually removed every single change I've made to the Brandt page and continually call me a "sockpuppet for Brandt" even though BRANDT HIMSELF DELETED my version of the page I spent well over an hour trying to clean up. Apparently in YOUR mind, anyone who posts anonymously must automatically be Brandt! I see no reason not to post anonymously, especially with all the B.S. that is flying around here. Also, any retard could take a moment to ascertain that my IP address is from BellSouth, which does not serve Brandt's home state of Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.217.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep he is notable, and that is the main criteria. --Rogerd 05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain Keep I merely add my voice to the many great thinkers above. I base my rationale for this tricky descision on the fact that Brandt is more notable than this guy, more inteligent than this guy, as virile as this guy and as good as with puppets as this guy. This guy is notable - more so than any of those guys IMHO. Oh, there does seem to be a real abundance of bullshit about charachters from various lame-assed fantasy games. Can someone delete all that nonsence please! jucifer 05:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable.--Nicodemus75 06:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he's notable, then Wikipedia should address his concerns rather than pissing him off, or else it's bad long-term juju. If he's not notable, this should never have happened. No one is addressing the issues he has raised: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/wikinot.gif 4.230.177.157 07:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Note: this was 4.230.177.157 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.--chris.lawson 07:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable. Sorry Brandt but the fact that you don't like how wikipedia works doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on you and/or our article shouldn't be editiable by anyone just like all our other articles. I will add the page to my watchlist and revert any vandalsim or POV edits. I'm sure plenty of other wikipedians will do the same. That is all that is necessary to keep the article neutral and non libelous IMO. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 07:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: bad faith and process: those remarking on a "bad faith nomination" do not appear to have read Talk:Daniel Brandt sufficiently, where I repeatedly suggested the article be AfD'd (to settle the issue either way) and others appeared to agree. Again, that the nominator may be Brandt and that Brandt has pissed us off collectively is not a sufficient reason for us to ignore our own procedures and guidelines and precedents on inclusion criteria. We should avoid the impression that we are looking for reasons to justify the original article creation (in order to defend Wikipedia's actions in the face of external criticism), rather than treat the case neutrally. Rd232 talk 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: notability1: juicifer compares Brandt to two fictional characters (for which there are specific notability guidelines: Wikipedia:Fiction), but relevant for Brandt is Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Juicifer also says of Brandt, without any sourcing, that "he is as virile as [porn star] Dave Cummings and as good as with puppets as [actor] Edgar Bergen." This "justification for vote" is as unsourced as it is frivolous. Rd232 talk 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: notability2: The major thing Brandt seems otherwise known for other than GoogleWatch is namebase.org. "Daniel Brandt" +"namebase" gets 4 hits in LexisNexis (all fairly minor refs, eg a footnote ref to namebase newsletter as a source), with a further 5 that mention it in passing where the focus is on GoogleWatch. namebase alone gets a couple more hits (40), but many are to a company of that name, and the few that aren't are not enough to suggest namebase should have an entry, let alone its founder. Rd232 talk 10:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • More sources (see article) suggest Brandt probably does (perhaps weakly) meet Wikipedia notability standards. Rd232 talk 11:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rd232: Holy Suffrin' Moses! I was just kidding around. i felt able to do that because he is so self evidetially notable that I don't know howto give you any more! "Daniel Brandt" (with the quotation maRKS) gets arount 70,000 results. Really man, relax, calm down and take that "wikibreak" you have been promising yourself. :-) jucifer 15:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not speedy. Google-watch makes Brandt notable, whether he likes it or not. Superm401 | Talk 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Brandt. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Minor, but well within notability bounds. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:. This is a rigged election. User Daniel_Brandt has been blocked for the next week, and cannot defend himself except on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Talk:Daniel_Brandt page, which no one reads. 4.230.162.141 01:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually he isn't blocked. If you look here [7] you'll see that a 7-day block was added (and is mentioned on his talk page) but it doesn't take effect because another block (namely my own) was added first. For a discussion on this see User_talk:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu#Daniel_Brandt and my talk page. Either way it wouldn't be entirely rigged, his comments couldn't overcome this many votes. Broken S 01:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he is blocked. I just asked him to try voting, and he said he was blocked. Interesting standard for a fair election: "Either way it wouldn't be entirely rigged." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.174.128 (talk • contribs) 21:09, November 6, 2005
    Hmm, odd (I guess the system doesn't work the way i thought it did). Alright I'll unblock him then, but if he acts up he'll just get blocked again. Broken S 02:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way this isn't an "election" or even (technically) a vote. We are seeking a concensus. Broken S 02:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by publishing his website and granting interviews he has made himself a notable Internet figure. Rhobite 01:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yippee, I'm unblocked. I unconsent, or whatever.... Daniel Brandt 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable, if barely so. Him not wanting an article here about himself is no reason to delete this. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because how is the Wikipedia conspiracy against Daniel Brandt ever going to get any of its important work done if the article gets deleted? Nohat 04:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel R. Jennings[edit]

Appears to be an article about a non-notable person. Google doesn't show much on the individual either, and it almost seems like an attempt to legitimize the individuals work/business. Locke Cole 17:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. It's worth noting that the article also seems to be written by the subject himself (User:Revdanj). - Locke Cole 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability (other than speaking with God, which is unverifiable). --A D Monroe III 18:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it verifiable that he has not spoken with God? You keep speaking of notability and your basing this on a Google search?! A google search for Daniel R. Jennings gives 2,040,000 results, but I'm sure you checked them all to verify that this Daniel R. Jennings was not one of 2,040,000. How would a Google search justify notability for ordinary people with common names such as us? Perhaps if we were thieves from Final fantasy 6 our namesakes alone would justify notability. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.8 (talk • contribs)
    • A search for "Daniel R. Jennings" returns 238 hits, of which seemingly 0 speak of the person being discussed in the article (no, I did not check each and every one, I did however run variations of the query with other keywords from the article to try and find relevant or notable info). Also, please read WP:CIV and WP:NPA-- making fun of my name isn't the way towards civilized discourse. -Locke Cole 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability. why don't you just make this into a user page?--Alhutch 19:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not understand why people keep saying that Daniel Jennings is not notable. He has preached in three countries and is currently working to organize a crusade in Torreon, Mexico with the Protestant Allianza. In three weeks his newest book will be advertised in Charisma Magazine which has an estimated readership of over 500,000. What does it take to be notable? I believe that there are some ulterior motives at work here. Locke Cole for some reason seems to be on a personal crusade against this wikipedia entry. So, let’s look at Locke Cole. Locke Cole takes his name from a Final Fantasy VI video game character. Anyone who has studied Final Fantasy knows that it is all based upon witchcraft and magic and very anti-Christian. That’s just the truth of the matter. Could it be that Locke Cole has targeted this website simply because its subject was a born-again Christian? The website hadn’t been up for five hours before Locke Cole began his attack. He didn’t even give me time to finish it to where I was satisfied with it before he was trying to have it deleted. I would like to know why he was so quick to try and stop this website from going up. And secondly, I would also like to know why a 25 year old man (Locke Cole according to a link from his user page) would put so much energy into this. He even went to the extent of setting up a special section at his user page against this entry. Why so much trouble? It’s just a dictionary entry. It’s not the end of the world if an international lecturer and author gets his name in wikipedia. Revdanj 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy very few Ghits on person or his company. Dlyons493 Talk 20:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and NN. - Sensor 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simple autobiography, exhibiting all of the problems that autobiographies have, including:
    • comprising wholly non-neutral content;
    • containing details of hopes, aspirations, and thoughts that are completely unverifiable without being able to read the mind of the subject (and, indeed, that parallel the examples in Wikipedia:vanity guidelines); and
    • not citing any sources and comprising large chunks of original research that has not been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge.
  • Research turns up no sources about this person, and even were the contents verifiable and not original research the only reasons given in the article and given above by the autobiographer for this person satisfying our criteria for inclusion of biographies are events that have not happened yet. Apart from creating Daniel R Jennings and Daniel Jennings, Revdanj (talk · contribs) has made no other contributions to the project whatsoever, so userfication is out. (One has to do more than just create an account and write about oneself to earn the privilege of a user page. Wikipedia is not a free user page hosting service.) Delete. Uncle G 00:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I didn't have anything to do with the vandalism and I am disappointed that someone would jump to the conclusion that I did that and even go to the point of saying that I was not a true Christian. I don't know who 164.106.51.174 is but it is not me. At any rate I have lost all respect for Wikipedia. The whole concept of Wikipedia turns it into nothing more than a site that allows gossip to be published as fact and popularity to be the determining factor in what is important and what is not. It is a sad commentary when a video game character is given more value than a human being who has achieved something that most have not. Revdanj 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 164.106.51.174 (talk · contribs) tracerts to DanvilleCC-ROA.networkvirginia.net. Your article claims you're back in Danville, Virginia. You're saying it's a coincidence that someone from the same town you live in (population: 48,411) came here and, of all the AfD noms to find users to vandalize, vandalized these specific user's pages that voted to delete this article? I'm no statistician, but something tells me the odds on that are pretty small. It seems a lot more likely that it was you. --Locke Cole 17:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't appreciate being accused of being the same person that this article is about or of being a vandal from Danville, VA. I am not in Danville so that proves that I didn't do it but since the person the article is about comes from Danville it would only make sense that he has supporters there. Secondly, it now seems obvious to me that you have been trying to get this article deleted without even reading it because the article clearly states IN THE FIRST LINE that this person is living in Oklahoma City. Do you care to explain why you are trying to delete something you have not even read? Revdanj 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't appreciate it? Then why did you choose the username "Revdanj"? It's reasonable to assume that's short for "Reverand Dan Jennings". And if you're not the person the article is about, how come someone claiming to be married to him posts from the same IP address as you? As for the Oklahoma bit, the article says his business is in Oklahoma, it doesn't say he is in Oklahoma. The article ends with him returning to Danville, VA. I shouldn't even be feeding this obvious troll, but it gets tiring watching you talk about yourself in the third person (like we're all a bunch of clueless noobs who can't figure out you're writing about yourself). I should also note that your attacks on me are pretty pathetic for a "man of God". --Locke Cole 09:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What people don't seem to understand is that Locke Cole or any of the other users who voted to delete this article doesn't have a personal vendetta against Daniel R. Jennings. We are following Wikipedia procedures and protocol for what is and is not notable. If you want to have this article be part of Wikipedia, you must follow the guidelines for notability of the Wikipedia community. If the article does not meet these guidelines, then it can't be part of Wikipedia. Feel free to post it on a site that provides free websites: there are many of these. We are not debating whether Daniel R. Jennings is a good person or whether he has done good things with his life and served God. We are debating whether or not he is notable enough by Wikipedia's standards (and no other standards, including personal merit) to have his own article. I think it is clear that he is not notable enough.--Alhutch 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Radiant_>|< 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark gems and Dark gem staff[edit]

Items from Spyro the Dragon game series. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Not notable - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not nominating the related article Red the Dragon; if you believe it should be deleted as well, go ahead. - Mike Rosoft 17:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davido, Victoria[edit]

A hoax. As per recent discussions at the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard. It is not on Geoscience Australia which does have localities no longer extant such as Homebush, Victoria or Dondangadale, and thus is extremely unlikely that Davido was ever a recognised Australian place name. The original editor cited a book reference. An Australian wikipedian reviewed that book and others and found:

The book cited by the editor, The Colonial Experience: the Port Phillip District 1834-1850 seems to be a school textbook, consisting mainly of diary entries of Victorian pioneers, covering the timespan 1834-1850 (obviously). The Davido article states that the town's active period was between 1867-1871 (beyond the timeframe of the textbook). There is no index in the book, and so I scanned the pages for mention of Davido - but there seemed to be nothing.
I checked the indexes of numerous books on nineteenth century Victoria, particularly those covering the Hamilton area, and found no mention of the town. I also checked the index volumes of the Victorian Historical Journal, which dates back to 1911, and this also revealed no mention of Davido.
Finally, in the genealogy room, I found Angus B. Watson's excellent and addictive book Lost & Almost Forgotten Towns of Colonial Victoria: A Comprehensive Analysis of Census Results for Victoria 1841-1901. This book includes all towns and villages as defined by the Government Statist for collection of Victorian censuses from 1841 to 1901. This includes settlements of as few as 13 people, yet there was no mention of Davido, which the article claims had a population of 1,500.
My conclusion is that the article is most definitely a hoax. If anyone wants to put this up for AfD, feel free to use the information I've just supplied. -- Cnwb 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Y Arktos (Talk) 07:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xtra 08:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:V. Cnwb has gone to great lengths to verify this and failed. I can add that there were no hits on Macquarie.net, an online resource sponsored by Macquarie University. A Google search revealed nothing useful see [9] and a search of Websterworld an Australian online research database proved fruitless. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Impresive effort Cnwb. Ben Aveling 11:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- A Y Arktos (Talk) 08:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks Cnwb for the quick response to finding the book, and the extra efforts you made. --Scott Davis Talk 11:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fantastic effort Cnwb (it can't be said too many times!) -- Chuq 11:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ditto what everybody else said. -- Adz 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cnwb and Capitalistroadster. encephalon 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brilliant bit of sleuthing by Cnwb to show this is a hoax. --Roisterer 03:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe move the page to Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense as a sort of tribute?

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ben, lets move this page to the jokes and nonsense page. bad luck to the suckers who made this up, try find something better to do with your time like Cnwb who has spent hours oh his life trying to prove this wrong! excellent work guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.162.131 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 November 2005

The suckers? You mean yourself? I think vandalism that is obviously false or a joke should go to BJAODN, but creating articles that look real, and even making up fake references when asked.. I think BJAODN would give the vandal the "immortality" he wants. -- Chuq 11:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Chuq. This guy sets up a page and wastes our time, then posts a message on user talk:ScottDavis telling him that he just had to test the system and see how reliable wikipedia is, while on the Davido, Victoria talk page, asks us whether we have nothing better to do with our lives than investigate fraudulent articles, refers to himself on this page as 'the sucker who started the article' and wants it put up on BJAODN. If it were the case that he was a well meaning wikipedian who wanted to test the system and intended to make valuable contributiotions, I'd perhaps be inclined to let him while keeping a close eye on him, but under the circumstances, I can't see why we shouldn't block him for a long time. What are the policies about that? Do we have to warn him before we block him? (I refer to him as 'him' instead of 'him or her' because the person who started this article originally called himself David Foley - the same guy who wrote about a boy named David Foley living in Hamilton, Victoria. See the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard for more info about David Foley's pranks. -- Adz 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't have to prove it incorrect. We could have said, "prove it, or else we delete it". Boring and Effective.
I think Cnwb did the look up because it was fun, and educational, and I don't see it as a waste. IMHO, it was a stylish victory in a complicated game. OK, the world isn't a better place for it, but hey, no dumb animals harmed in the making and all that.
If we admire the play, we can BJAODN with full credit to Cnwb and no credit to the vandal.
Regards, Ben Aveling 02:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is good that people are taking this project and its verifiability as seriously as Cnwb. This is naturally an unreliable source and it is to Cnwb's full credit for looking this up in verifiable sources. If only everyone had the time to check everything on Wikipedia. Xtra 05:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I'm the d**k who did this. Umm I would just like to verify that I am not David Foley and he had very little to do with this. I just wanted to point that out because he is very angry at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.162.131 (talk • contribs)
Very little isn't nothing. What was David's contribution? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
David asked me how they monitor pages and I said I would find out for him and whilst at his house I created the page called Davido, Victoria. I will apologise once more, but if you don't accpet my apology I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.162.131 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Denelson83. — Chick Bowen 03:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daynamic web page[edit]

Farsi, looks like a dicdef, if that, arguably speediable as no context. It is currently on WP:PNT, but I am sending it here as it looks unsalvageable. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 11:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted.  Denelson83  08:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Defenestration. Robert T | @ | C 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defenistrate[edit]

Nominate for deletion and vote for same as dicdef. It's spelled wrong too. - Sensor 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digital gaming[edit]

refures to a website alexa hasn't even herd of. Not even on the first page when I google the phrase. Looks like adcertiseing.Geni 20:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie dollas[edit]

Is s/he really well known? Or will be well known in 2007?--Austrian 15:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Monitors with nVidia TwinView[edit]

This is a tutorial and not an encyclopedic article at all. Kevin McManus 02:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Kevin McManus 02:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Cleduc 09:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 09:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a tutorial. — JIP | Talk 18:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT an instruction manual. - Sensor 20:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Plus I had a Mac which did dual screens of different resolutions and bit depths (and one was a Pivot at that) back in 1995, so this stuff is soooooo last century :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EAthena[edit]

Link to "list of eAthena servers" put eAthena 23rd on the list of Ragnarok servers, most of which make no mention of eAthena, which does not sound notable to me. I am not an expert (and I would delete all games articles on sight anyway) but this does not, from a couple of searches, appear to be half as notable as it purports to be. I could be wrong, that's why we have votes. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps with edits to make some things clearer. You make a good point about the server list-I added the list, I've removed it. Sorry about a poorly-thought-out edit. As far as the "not notable" issue goes, even if eAthena isn't notable, doesn't it make sense to have it anyway, if for no other reason then to make Wikipedia as comprehensive as possible? That being said, a google search for eAthena comes up with over 45,000 sites, which seems pretty notable to me... - Zkion 03:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above unsigned comment apparently by article's author; deleted link is A list of eAthena servers. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I didn't write the article... I just added the server list. And I've signed both comments now, sorry. I, personally, wouldn't consider this as so much of a games article as a computing article-eAthena isn't the game itself, only the emulator on which many servers for the game are run.- Zkion 03:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Doesn't appear to be in wide use. --InShaneee 01:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? What wrong is it doing? This is a professional emulator for a MMORPG, this is not advertising, the developers spend months of their time to create this/ update this on a continual basis, and they want to share it with the world. And 'InShaneee' wants to deleate it as advertising... And yes it is in wide use, about 80% of all servers listed in that site will use the eAthena emulator. It is a highly advanced piece of C coding and I, and I speak on behalf of all our 100,000+ registerd members that you should not remove this. Micksta, eA member.

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

The result of the debate was redir. Radiant_>|< 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elektrichka song[edit]

move to wikisource, if it is not a copyvio. mikka (t) 04:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has no useful English content. --A D Monroe III 18:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Redirect to Kino (band), which is notable. Stop systemic bias. - Sensor 19:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was not systemic bias: it was fact. The article 99% consists of a source text in Russian (transliterated), and there is nothing to merge. I may suspect you voted without opening the article page. mikka (t) 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, sorry. I read the article, and also looked into what its notability was asserted to be (via Kino). However, I misvoted; I meant to vote redirect instead of merge. Changed my vote above. - Sensor 21:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of fighting systemic bias, but this is still the English language Wikipedia; it needs to be in English. If someone can translate the song text, I'd change my vote. --A D Monroe III 20:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elim Garak (Alias Unbound)[edit]

Star Trek character appropriated by NN fanfic, which has been separately nominated for deletion. Anville 23:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. We need a policy re speedy deletions for fanfic entries, methinks. - Sensor 23:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my own reasoning in other Alias Unbound deletion debates. We don't neccesarily need a speedy for fanfics, in rare occasions they can be worth an entry, but this appears to be unverifiable as well. - Mgm|(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jnothman talk 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and per Alias Unbound - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 09:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 23skidoo 16:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Kept nominator withdrew --JAranda | watz sup 01:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 12333[edit]

Based on the new edit, which quadrubples the length of this article, I withdraw the nomination. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC) This article Executive Order 12333 belongs in the wiki-dictionary, not encyclopedic. Joaquin Murietta 08:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand, or perhaps merge into War on Terrorism. Definitely notable and encyclopedic. - Sensor 13:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep
    • Disclaimer #1, I started this article.
    • Disclaimer #2, User:Joaquin Murietta has made a habit of nominating articles I start for deletion. They also follow around the articles I edit, and make unexplained excisions of my contributions, that seem indistinguishable from vandalism to me.
    • This executive order is as significant as any of the others in the List of United States federal executive orders.
    • Reinterpretation of this Executive Order was necessary for President George W. Bush to order the targetted killing (ie assassination) of leading terrorists. That makes this EO notable. -- Geo Swan 14:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Looks notable and encyclopedaic to me. Dlyons493 Talk 14:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Bad faith nom per Geo Swan. --JJay 15:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BEfore (or in this case after)you accuse me of bad faith, here is the original edit, before you posted:

Executive Order 12333 extends the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies and directs the leaders of other US federal agencies to co-operate fully with CIA requests for information.

I will make further comments on your talk page. Joaquin Murietta 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and strong keep, I hate stalkers. --Striver 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Your hatred is duly noted, but why not take a look at my edits to Ali Ahmad Said?Joaquin Murietta 16:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done to the person who rewrote the article which was worthy of consideration in this forum in its original state. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the article has been re-written. Sliggy 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As notable and encyclopaedic as every other article in List of United States federal executive orders. Why did the nominator single this particular one out? The short length of an article is not a valid AfD criterion in itself. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - any directive from the President of the U.S. that "extends the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies" is inherently notable. Furthermore, executive orders are generally notable, and I'd therefore be willing to let a questionable case stand as an article for the sake of Wikipedia having a complete record of these devices. BD2412 T 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preaky 01:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Gothic Metal[edit]

Non-notable label. Plus the 2 examples have more to do with black metal than gothic metal. Delete Arm 06:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Fixed formatting of AFD nomination ♠DanMS 06:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete per nom Spearhead 13:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, no content. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angels and the Origins of Evil, Elizabeth Clare Prophet[edit]

No meaningful content, nothing beyond rewriting the title. Fallsend 21:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge. Radiant_>|< 11:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filtering vodka[edit]

How to remove impurities from vodka and other alcoholic beverages. Not encyclopedic, and I don't see how this can be expanded into a full article. Also, this reads like a "How-to". —Brim 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This content should go somewhere, as it's a well-known practice--I've been involved in attempts to test this, but we couldn't get funding for the bottle of Grey Goose we'd need in phase two. Meelar (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into vodka. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interwiki to Wikibooks. Perhaps it's an interesting topic to others? -- WB 06:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per howcheng. And don't forget the Bond expertise in Moonraker. Dlyons493 Talk 09:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per howcheng. Avalon 12:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief, how much is the cheap stuff, if the "expensive" stuff is $10.99 for 1.75l? Over here in UK-land the cheapest nastiest probably-undrinkable-unless-you're-just-about-comatose stuff is about £6.99 for a 0.7l bottle, or some $33 for 1.75l. Absolut is £15.99 a litre, or roughly US$53 for 1.75l. Merge per above, by the way. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per howcheng. I've done this, and not as a poor college student, but as an experiment to find out just what makes good vodka, anyway. - Sensor 13:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to vodka and change tone. - Mgm|(talk) 19:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge with Vodka - Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how to guide. This information belongs in Wikibooks, and can be linked to from the vodka article. Transwiki. Proto t c 10:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, what about mention the practice in vodka and link to the transwiki'd material? --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. HGB 23:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fing-longra[edit]

Fancruft masquerading as a neologism. A search of Google finds that this is a based on a fictional device from the cartoon Futurama.[10] --Allen3 talk 01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flying W Ranch[edit]

appears to be an advertisement & an invitation to visit an advertising web-site Avalon 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination Avalon 12:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Garnered Alexa rank of 1,205,295. *drew 13:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. - Sensor 13:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress of ineptitude[edit]

A catchy phrase, but it only appears in "privately written" — i.e., emphatically NN — fanfic. Anville 23:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G&A[edit]

The page contains a single valueless sentence, is linked to from nowhere, and does not appear to be a description of a well recognized term that people would want defined. Pmetzger 19:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The term is well-recognized and appears on every earnings statement of almost every company. However, it is a dicdef, and a poor one at that. Delete. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either move to Wiktionary or merge with a list of financial terms or an explanation of annual reports. Andrew pmk | Talk 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Wot Andrew said. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there to "merge" here? The article contains one sentence, badly written. As for the financial term, it is (apparently) GA&O, and it is not per se a term from annual reports but is rather an accounting term. Note again that this page is so devistatingly popular that it has exactly zero other pages linking to it. --Pmetzger 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Game-Revolution. Physchim62 (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamepost[edit]

Vanity. Aecis 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirect per Mgm. Vanity is right. -- Captain Disdain 14:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Game-Revolution (the site it belongs to) and include a quick line about the forums (not the moderators). - Mgm|(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete this article, I'll shit in your mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.179.147 (talk • contribs) UTC 15:04, 30 October 2005 The preceding comment was deleted by 68.62.15.170, the author of the comment below; I have restored it in all its glory. 68.62.15.170, please do not edit the votes and comments of others, even when they are of, uh, such sterling caliber as the one above. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The Game Revolution gamepost is a forum for many people and it discusses many important topics. Not only does it keep up to date on everything videogame, but it has made strong friendships and even brought lovers together. The site is very important in the lives of many, and this page will give a history to ease the burden of retelling the story over and over. It will become more insightful as the history is written and will be very useful to hundreds of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.15.170 (talk • contribs) UTC 16:00, 30 October 2005

  • I understand where you're coming from, and please understand that this is not a slight on your community. If you want to document the history of your community, that's entirely understandable and even commendable. Go for it. However, Wikipedia is not the place to do it; it's not a free webhost provider. Generally speaking, "useful to hundreds of people" is not really enough to warrant inclusion to Wikipedia, unless it's a particularly obscure, yet notable topic. Gamepost, in the end, simply yet another web forum, and while I don't mean to belittle its significance to you, I must say that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's simply not big and influential enough to merit mention, any more than my personal blog or the various online forums I've been known to hang out at are; just because they're important to me, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world cares. That may sound cold, but please understand that I'm not trying to offend. We're building an encyclopedia, not a place where relatively small communities can showcase themselves. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about other forums that get mention such as Neowin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Gero (talk • contribs) UTC 03:08, 31 October 2005
      • Please sign your comments. You can do that by typing out four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That'll leave your username (or IP address) and the time when you left the comment -- that way everyone knows who said what. And to answer your actual question, I'm not actually all that familiar with Neowin, but judging by its article, it is a far more notable forum than Gamepost is. Honestly, it should be fairly obvious why this is the case, but since you ask, I'm going to quote a couple of relevant bits from the article: "Powered by Invision Power Board forum software, Neowin has an active technology forum consisting of 118,979 registered users (October 26, 2005) and more than 5 million posts." That's a lot of users right there. Compared to Gamepost's 10,000+ users, that's a whole different order of magnitude. Size does matter. One of their articles has also been the "most viewed story on Slashdot ever" -- not a huge claim to fame, but that's not easily pulled off, either. Apparently, theirs is a fairly influential webforum, and a very, very significant number of people go there for their Windows-related news. (Note that as 118,979 is just the number of registered users, it's likely that far more people actively follow it.) Gamepost, on the other hand, is not readily distinguishable from numerous other game forums. Also, please note that Neowin's forums do not have an article of their own. In fact, Game-Revolution already has an article on Wikipedia, and that's not going anywhere (though it could certainly use some work). The current consensus to merge the articles means that the (relevant and notable) information on the current Gamepost article is preserved and moved to Game-Revolution, so it's not like Gamepost is getting treated any different from Neowin. (Of course, if the forums themselves are somehow notable enough to deserve an article all their own, please tell us why this is so; if you can do that, I'm sure that we're more than willing to revise our votes. It's not an uncommon thing to happen during the AfD process, though I should probably point out that generally we favor hard facts over emotional pleas.) Hope this helps. -- Captain Disdain 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a brief summary to Game-Revolution and redirect. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Game-Revolution per Angr & MgM. I almost voted delete simply on the grounds of the anon comments up there ^^^. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "If you delete this article, I'll shit in your mouth." I found this hilarious for some reason. Plus, it's more compelling than voting "real". ;-) -- Kjkolb 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete to allow an article about the Doom clone JIP mentions to be created. Radiant_>|< 11:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gloom (Game)[edit]

Delete - This actually looks like a vanity article by an amateur game programmer. It even claims that the "brand new engine" the game uses has not been actually released yet. A google search turns up next to nothing. Ed Sanville 21:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite, Gloom was an actual Doom clone for the Amiga computer. It is certainly more notable than any current "Gloom" game. — JIP | Talk 18:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GoGirls[edit]

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page (sort of). Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are not posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_suggestion_to_start_clearing_"claims_permission" for our discussion.) Anyway, this looks like a non-notable group and vanity to me. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 00:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graffix[edit]

Non-notable band that doesn't meet the music notability guidelines (as per my research), delete dr.alf 13:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great and Little Belt[edit]

Great Belt and Little Belt already described BeteNoir 06:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, or else merge Great Belt and Little Belt into this article and delete them. - BeteNoir 06:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, per nom FRS 17:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Baltic Sea. - Sensor 20:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Cleared as filed. 12:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:CSD criterion A6. (Deleted by Doc glasgow) -Nameneko 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grpesim[edit]

God alone knows what they are on about, but whatever it is it scores precisely one Google hit (for an unrelated email adrdess) and zero for apparentt notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A6. Also, utterly non-notable. Also, title of article is misspelled. Seems to have a dual purpose of 1) insulting whoever the subjects of the article are, and 2) promoting BillyBob's personal webpage. - Pasiphae 22:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A6. Disparagement. - Sensor 22:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Hands[edit]

An anonymous businessman, about whom nothing notable is claimed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. "Made a fortune" is a claim of notability. Go onto the company's page and you will find Mr Hands' photo and bio. However, I question whether being the CEO of a midsized UK capital-investment firm is enough to establish notability. - Sensor 13:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about the "made a fortune", but it's too vague, and is applied to countless people in business. Good grief, most of them only have to work for a year with their normal salary to get what I'd consider a fortune... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Numerous articles confirm he is a major financial player in Europe. --JJay 15:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give some links? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google gives 42,000 hits. Some examples- Business Week profile [[11]], Launch of Hotel Chain [[12]], Purchase of cinema chain [[13]], Bid for Northgate [[14]], Etc. --JJay 16:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "news.bbc.co.uk" alone returns 23 hits for ""Guy Hands" Nomura" [15] and 6 for ""Guy Hands" "Terra Firma"" [16]. --Edcolins 16:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable UK businessman. 38,600 hits for this guy see [17]. On the first page of the search, there are a number of articles from the mainstream media so he meets WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Should WP:CORP be expanded to deal with biographies of businesspeople as WP:MUSIC does with musicians. Capitalistroadster 19:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamus allis[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is a hoax. Nothing on Google mentions "Hamus allis" mdd4696 16:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax bullshit. - Sensor 20:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hamus is NOT a genus of hamster. - Mgm|(talk) 23:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Carioca 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry for all of those nonsense edits. I know that the author posted this as a joke. xetrov_znt 04:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Highlighter-coloured hamsters. Yeah, right. Bearcat 09:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Native fluorescent hamsters in Canada????. Methinks that the author would be a member of the subfamily Cricetinae if we removed the "ic". Luigizanasi 01:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete linkspam. -Doc ask? 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headswim[edit]

Nominate and vote for deletion as NN vanity and WP:MUSIC not met. - Sensor 23:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heinkel He 278[edit]

Delete. Google and Wikipedia search shows that there never was a Heinkel He 278 airplane, as this page so states. DanMS 05:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Heinkel pages. -- WB 06:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no redirect to avoid confusion. If it redirects, someone may think it exists. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No salvageable content. A redirect would be misleading. --A D Monroe III 19:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being an attempt at communication. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G1 (patent nonsense, text unsalvagely incoherent) and/or A1 (very short article containing no context). If ineligible for speedy delete, then just plain delete as nonsense and unverifiable. - Sensor 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for redirect: highly improbable search term, orphaned article. Chick Bowen 03:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Ifill[edit]

not notable, apparently unverifiable

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Radiant_>|< 11:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House Of Maqbool[edit]

  • Relisting article, because the previous one has no recorded vote. The following is the justification provided by the previous nominator :

Not notable. A google search on "Tahir Sohail" "Shahid Maqbool" does not provide any results, does not pass WP:BIO in my opinion, and not sure if this can be verified.
Note: It is possible that this is part of an attenpt to interlink and provide credibility for United Detergents and Shahid Maqbool.
Bjelleklang - talk 21:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

- Mailer Diablo 17:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even less notable now, as the UD, Tahir Sohail and Shahid Maqbool articles have been deleted. Delete this one too... Bjelleklang - talk 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by User:Sam Korn as nonsense (and then speedied two more times after being recreated twice.) Robert T | @ | C 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indiefucks[edit]

Livejournal communities tend to be less than notable. This one is no exception. Content is obviously unencyclopedic, and I think it's fair to say that there's no hope of salvaging anything from this one. -- Captain Disdain 10:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 10:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and the article is badly done as it is dr.alf 13:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN vanitycruft. Borders on candidate for G1 speedy as unsalvagely incoherent/patent nonsense. - Sensor 13:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. per nom. encephalon 14:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it just got speedied. - Sensor 21:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twice. The version I saw when voting was not WP:PN. It was later edited/vandalized, and a speedy tag stuck on it by an editor. SD'd, recreated as nonsense, SD'd again. encephalon 21:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infochannel Software[edit]

Very non-notable software product or even a fake.

Rietveld Analysis would seem to deserve an article, so perhaps parts can be used for that one, if verified by an expert.

Pjacobi 12:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

infochannel science software (earlier name: CORAN - A coputer program to convert energy dispersive X-Ray spectra for rietveld analysis). It is not for rietveld analysis but is a pre-processing software to convert high pressure (up to 1.5 Mbars) obtained (in diamond anvil cells) powder energy dispersive synchrotron sprectra into normal pressure angle-dispersive powder x-ray spectra as entry values for RV-Analysis (topics: synchrotron radiation, high pressure physics). Expert is needed. It's not a fake it's really used at some Synchrotron sources (DESY, Germany, ESRF, Grenoble France, SRS, Daresbury, Warrigton, UK, Chess, Ithaca, NY., USA). See Keywords: e.g. Prof. Holzapfel, University Paderborn, Germany. You can't find it under rietveld analysis! Maybe need an expert!

82.83.83.188 14:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Maybe need evidence of notability, which is the reason it's been nominated. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 16:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was I merged this into sacred dance and created a redirect. Rx StrangeLove 03:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intercessory dance[edit]

  • del. Nonnotable. Nonverifiable. Google search excluding legal wikipedia mirrors gives only 85 unique hits, more than 60 of them are just indexes or wikipedia copies. And none of them gives any independent and reliable info about what the heck it is, beyond the dictionary definition, which one can easily guess by themselves. mikka (t) 16:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into sacred dance. I vaguely remember hearing about something like this in the context of post-Vatican II concepts like "liturgical dance". - Sensor 20:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by me. Sounds like complete fiction (and I speak as a practising Christian). Google excluding mirrors does little to disabuse me of that view. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge One of the grad students at my university did a thesis on the role of dance in Christianity, so the concept is out there, if only in an obscure way. Kerowyn 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (CSD #7). Neutralitytalk 20:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamez[edit]

Not notable. Possible vanity page. Note 2 deleted edits in past. —Brim 04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to fail WP:Music. (Vermont has a ghetto?) --W.marsh 04:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (doesn't say he lives in Vermont now, must be the ghetto part of some other city). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 06:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. No assertion of notability. ERcheck 07:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vanitycruft and no assertion of notability. - Sensor 11:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamileh[edit]

Foreign language dict-def. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Allen3 talk 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Tom Clancy's Net Force. Physchim62 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gridley[edit]

Delete: non-notable father of a computer game programmer. Redirect to Tom Clancy's Net Force. I should have checked linked articles, my bad. Cleduc 09:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Joaquin Murietta's note below, I change my vote to redirect to Tom Clancy's Net Force. —Cleared as filed. 09:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very gracious of you both, but, tomorrow, please reconsider whether this merits more than a redirect. Several of the fictional characters have their own articles, cluding some listed in TCNF, and Jay Gridley is a central character. Regards! Joaquin Murietta 09:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? They all seem to be red links except this one. In any case, there isn't much to the article, so it wouldn't seem to need its own article unless it's heavily expanded. —Cleared as filed. 09:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three reasons to keep it -- this is a non-controversial series of novels, insofar as young people have posted these topics, I'd like to encourage them to use Wikipedia, and also if books like Bush on the Couch can survive AfD merely because they are controversial, maybe we should allow the non-controversial to take root? Joaquin Murietta 10:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by me, via A7. No assertion of notability here. Friday (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Sorensen[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete.--Isotope23 03:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah J. Sinkie[edit]

This appears to be something that should be in the user namespace, but the user in question already has a user page. Otherwise, non-notable vanity page. —Cleared as filed. 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity, but let's please be nice about it and not bite the newcomers. Cleduc 09:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly agreed. I should have mentioned that I politely let JackSparrow know about the Wikipedia policy and this AFD on his user talk page. —Cleared as filed. 09:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 04:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Hay Whitney/family[edit]

Split from John Hay Whitney some time ago. Essentially a detailed family background article. Delete, no merge. --FuriousFreddy 23:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Hay Whitney/Technicolor[edit]

Split from John Hay Whitney some time ago. Essentially a detailed explanation of his involvement with Technicolor. Whitney's article is already long enough, as is Technicolor. Delete, no merge. --FuriousFreddy 22:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karma (Alias Unbound)[edit]

No evidence that this has been published at all, let alone commercially and notably. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, did a quick google search it and couldn't find anything outside of WP, kind of seems to be NN fan fiction. - Fallsend 21:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina: The Wrath of Bush[edit]

Delete. This article was deleted by the illuminati, see non-notable hoax website. It is not affiliated with Michael Moore or his production company, and all of the original information contained therein is entirely fabricated. Lifeisunfair 21:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Rafterman 21:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nomination / ?original research? "possible" movie. hoax? 70.122.87.59 22:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bad-taste hoax per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of credible sources and the crystal ball clause. Recreate if later proven to be non-{{Hoax}}. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A "possible film" deserves a possible article. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources flagged up by the nominator look pretty suspect. Hoax or not, WP is not a crystal ball. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep For the sake of inevetible future attempts to rewrite it by people who don't know the movie's bogus. Suggest to change the title of article so it at least acknowledges the websites' existence but that it's a only a joke. --Lamrock 09:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notable hoaxes should be covered in that context, but there's no evidence that this particular hoax is notable. (Have a look at the title's Google hits, the first of which is the Wikipedia article.) —Lifeisunfair 09:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Urhahn[edit]

Non-notable artist with doubtful fan base. Delete. -- Perfecto Canada 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN vanity. - Sensor 13:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enh...she was in a notable-enough band (Lillix). I'm kind of torn as to whether individual band members should have articles in this case or not, though -- there are some cases where it's legitimate and some where it isn't, but I'm just not sure what side of that dividing line Lillix falls on. Bearcat 09:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Torn? Read WP:BIO and WP:NMG and be untorn. -- Perfecto Canada 16:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither one of those at all addresses the question of how big a band has to be before its members merit their own individual articles separate from the band's article. Bearcat 19:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Bearcat, as far as I know, band members are musicians. As such, WP:BIO and WP:NMG apply. Fair enough? -- Perfecto Canada 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, band members are musicians -- the point is that the policies don't differentiate between "solo musicians" and "musicians who were in bands". If the band meets the stated criteria, then by definition she meets the stated criteria by virtue of having been in a band that meets the stated criteria. Neither policy suggests any viable way to subdivide notable bands into "notable enough to have separate entries for each individual member in addition to the band article" from "only notable enough to have an article on the band itself". Richard Parry, for example, survived a VfD in June specifically on the grounds that if The Arcade Fire was notable enough for an article, then that band's members were notable enough for articles by virtue of being in a notable band -- so that's the precedent I'm working from here. Bearcat 00:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parry's nom page shows other reasons. I'm sorry Bearcat; are you comparing Richard Parry to Kim Urhahn? Parry's article demonstrates notability for reasons other than being in TAF -- a media interview, for example. Yes, policies don't differentiate, yes, neither policies suggest ways to subdivide bands — so I'm looking at Urhahn as a musician — as per WP:BIO and WP:NMG, is she notable as one? -- Perfecto Canada 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If she was in a band that met the NMG criteria, then she meets the MNG criteria by virtue of having been in a band that met the NMG criteria. I simply don't see how Wikipedia policy makes it at all possible to say otherwise. Bearcat 01:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band was notable (or so they tell me), not her. --maclean25 00:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable, she is an excellent musician. --Sweet-as-suger 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This account was created today, with a high sock-puppet index. Cleduc 08:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Country Electricity[edit]

Contributor of this one line article is furthering an agenda marginally related to article's (arguably nn) subject

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LAprepSoccer.com[edit]

Looks like a not-too-badly-done article by someone well-meaning, but Wikipedia is not a web directory and I don't think the web site is encyclopedic or notable, even if it has 3000 registered members of its forum. I recommend Deleting it. DavidConrad 18:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lasher (comics)[edit]

Minor character in marvel comic strip. Does not pass WP:FICTION. Article begins "Very little is known about..." jnothman talk 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is just a joky comment--JBellis 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Mirecki[edit]

Orginal contributor has requested that it be deleted. Talk:Lee Mirecki I think there might be a good case for non-notabilty anyway. Just nominating, No Vote --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete if requested by author. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if this is speedy, since it wasn't created by mistake. At least, that's why I took it to AfD rather than asking for a speedy deletion. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read it all through and checked the story on the web, I think actually it would be better to try to clean it up. I think there is an important story in there; there are navy training manuals which mention the name and it does seem to have made some waves. It's also one of a number of suspicious deaths of military recruits in training which is mirrored in the UK. Is there a parent article we could merge it into, I wonder? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Jones (linguist)[edit]

not notable

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Obviously nonsensical, therefore this article has no useful content or history. Friday (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manatoo[edit]

Unverified and probably unverifiable, because mammals (manatees) cannot interbreed with birds (cockatoos). No source cited, an absolute necessity for an article that reads like an obvious joke, transparent hoax, or patent nonsense. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to Psychological abuse by User:Friday. Robert T | @ | C 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mental cruelty[edit]

There's nothing that could be in this article that couldn't be explained better elsewhere. The article currently has no useful content. Superm401 | Talk 04:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to psychological abuse. Could be a search term. Jkelly 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Move to Wiktionary. A few articles actually link to this page, so it's worth keeping in some form, probably with a redirect (as suggested above) or to a Wiktionary entry for this term. —Brim 05:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. "No useful content" is exactly right. Redirect per Jkelly. I've been bold and redirected it speedily. Friday (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per Jkelly. Saberwyn 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. - Mgm|(talk) 19:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jkelly. HGB 23:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Park[edit]

Notability of this recreational business park not established and Wikipedia is not a business directory.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Neutralitytalk 20:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metaloix[edit]

Non-notable game coders. "Un-Registered company" means nonexistent, doesn't it?

  • Delete Gazpacho 03:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article and images. *drew 04:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the products section of their webpage: "Ever wanted your brand or website name all over the internet. I DO!" That says it all, doesn't it? Indium 06:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Um.... This is just basicly here because they are, im pretty sure the yongest semi-novice coders in Australia..... You have runescape and pokemon on here might aswell have these guys. And buy the way just because there un-registered doesnt mean they dont count!! They are kids that made this Brand name thats why they have been added! How would a kid know where to begin in getting his Company Registered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.177.251 (talk • contribs) 07:11, November 5, 2005
The preceeding Sockpuppet's only edits are to this page. -Indium 08:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Bernard[edit]

Oversize hoax? Totally unverifiable. Not (he or books) on Amazon. Claims notability, such as being revolutionary author on internet less than 15 years after birth. See also AFDed The Dark and The Light. jnothman talk 15:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's hardly notable – most of the cruft on the Net seems to be written by 14-year-olds. I'd say "userfy" but who to? Delete and have done with it. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom --Isolani 15:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and after reference to The Dark and The Light. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty awful vanity. -R. fiend 16:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, young authors can be notable. But if they are authors on the internet without any verifiability through Google, I won't buy it. - Mgm|(talk) 23:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article claims notability, but I can't verify any of it. Apparently none of the contributors can either because they refuse to list sources. --TantalumTelluride 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vaughn (Alias Unbound)[edit]

Yet another character appropriated by NN fanfic. Delete as unverifiable cruft. Anville 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty 'white' of you[edit]

Bogus dicdef of an actual slang expression in the U.S. Even a corrected definition would still be a dicdef. 66.191.124.236 06:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ack, delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, its a slang expression in the English-speaking world too, and has nothing to do with wights. However, even if it was correct, its still only a dicdef. Avalon 12:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. Real, but not encyclopedic. - Sensor 13:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what they said. - Pasiphae 21:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, frankly do not believe the explanation absent a good source citation. The expression itself was once common enough; "Not very white of you," "It was damn white of you," "This is certainly white of you," "Well, that's blamed white of you," Hopalong replied," "Darned if that ain't white of you, Parker!" Old Heck exclaimed," and "this is mighty white of you, do you know it? And after the way I guyed you when I first came in!" turn up in [this Google search of Project Gutenberg]. Don't think it's significant enough for an entire article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef. Penelope D 21:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as gibberish and a personal attack. — JIP | Talk 18:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M.O.C.K.[edit]

Your basic "stream of conscience" nonsense. Bookandcoffee 05:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as noted. --Bookandcoffee 05:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the radio from under my fingernails! Mo0[talk] 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or better yet speedy delete under criterion A6 ("Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject") or as patent nonsense, definition 2, "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." --DavidConrad 05:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. *drew 06:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Attack. And throw in stupidity while we are at it. (We should have a CSD for stupidity.) ♠DanMS 06:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. as above. -- WB 06:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G1 ... and I think you meant "stream of consciousness". howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 06:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...yeah that's what I meant! (And the sad thing is I had to spell check it before I put it up. :) --Bookandcoffee 16:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mom's Dirty Water[edit]

Bogus cocktail. Not found on Internet drink databases at http://www.cocktaildb.com/, http://www.webtender.com, http://www.drinkswap.com, or http://www.barfliers.com (which claims to have 10,000 drink recipes). Google search also non-productive. Even if such a cocktail did exist, it is clearly not encyclopedically significant. 66.191.124.236 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not verifiable drink creation. —Cleared as filed. 09:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., although I have read of a drink called "dirty water" in the past. - Sensor 13:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 15:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn cocktail, but we should have an article about anybody who manages to be born in Chicago while living in Arizona. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable and faintly nauseating - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any article containing the phrase "legend has it" is pretty suspect unless it cites some verifiable sources for the legend... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - 10,000 recipes: is it valid to say there are only 10,000 notable drinks in the world? Deryck C. 09:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 11:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New WWE[edit]

Nominate and delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Says league "started in 2006" but it's still 2005. Also unverified. - Sensor 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete FireFox -CVU- 18:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Lounge[edit]

To my knowledge, a forum that was just recently created and has no real "accomplishments" falls under non-notable. Mo0[talk] 05:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this fails Wikipedia:Websites (56 members, no alexa rank) and thus doesn't seem notable. --W.marsh 05:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. per Mo0. -- WB 06:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under Wikipedia:Websites, until someone comes along and starts complaining about how WP:WEB is only a proposed policy. At that point, delete under the proposed guideline that is WP:WEB. Saberwyn 06:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent: Nordic TransFans Association, with over 300 members, was deleted, so this forum with 56 members should also be. — JIP | Talk 18:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 19:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — brighterorange (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off Parole[edit]

Nominated for Speedy delete per CSD A1. Utterly no context.Keep after Orange's cleanup. Thanks. - Sensor 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep stub since I have added context and cleaned up. It's usually easy to get context for these things by checking the what links here special. — brighterorange (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brigher Orange's rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • medium speed keeping since nominator has withdrawn deletion request. — brighterorange (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a short (and barely even comprehensible) article with no history and no context. Uncle G 23:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orange juice giraff[edit]

Speedy delete as CSD G1 patent nonsense. Argh. - Sensor 23:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Logistics[edit]

Delete. Minor Chinese company that “offers Logistical Services such as warehousing and packaging products”. No claim to notability. Source of the article is given as “life experience.” ♠DanMS 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. “life experience” is what entitles you to buy your PhD diploma. Dlyons493 Talk 09:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible badly-styled copyvio. Deryck C. 09:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original Puff Daddy[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. No AMG entry. No Google hits for "Original Puff Daddy Canton." Delete. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep with move to Suspension (school punishment). Physchim62 (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of School Suspension[edit]

Shouldn't this be in Wiktionary? Or deleted outright? Devotchka 22:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & redirect - Suspension was certainly a punishment at my school, but it wasn't called "out of school suspension" (what other kind would there be?) and in any case it seems likey it should be merged into an article oon sanctions employed by schools, as it is very short on its own. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I was a little confused by that too. We always just called it "suspension". Devotchka 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary definition (aka dicdef) --Neigel von Teighen 22:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An other type of suspension is ISS in-school suspension (I had a few of those) they were mostly used for lesser offenses like being tardy for X number of times and so on. At my high school they sometimes let you choose if you wanted a ISS or an OSS tough choice huh? BTW I support "Just zis Guy, you know?" notion for merge and redirect.KnowledgeOfSelf 23:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting to get more votes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Suspension (punishment) or something, clean up, and keep. Under this title it can be used for both in-school suspension (which we had at my high school too) and out-of-school suspension. At the moment there's just a brief paragraph on suspension as a punishment at Suspension, which is otherwise a disambig page, and that paragraph doesn't even cover its use in schools. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename as per Angr and expand to deal with inhouse suspensions. Important disciplinary tool for schools and the most serious step short of expulsion from school. Capitalistroadster 16:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Secondary education in the United States and redirect; there's no article on expulsion as a punishment for high schoolers, either, just a brief mention on the Expulsion disambig page. - Pasiphae 21:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and expand per Angr. Kappa 01:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and expand as per Angr. Silensor 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested resolution[edit]

I propose that we collect this article and any related items under some suitably titled article on sanctions employed by schools. We could call it Punishment (school) as a working title. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Owlie, Owly[edit]

NN neologism "perhaps only used in southwest Dickinson, North Dakota." Not even Wiktionary material. Delete. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paddock (field)[edit]

Dictionary definition. Not likely to be filled out with something encyclopedic. This definition is also already covered at the Paddock disambiguation page. —Cleared as filed. 12:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party Bus 08[edit]

I'm just jealous that i dont have time to make articles about me and MY friends and waste everyone's time on wikipediaTastemyHouse 19:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Abstain per nomination
  • Delete. Not notable. BD2412 T 19:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just a group of kids drinking and partying, i.e. not at all notable. Sliggy 19:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insignificant teenage drinking nonsense - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy. --Metropolitan90 20:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN stupid japery. - Sensor 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic and non-notable poorly written article. Vaoverland 22:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! Okay, we give up... sorry.
  • Delete N/n/n Moriori 01:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Cleared as filed. 12:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comments by creator and Cl8390[edit]

Note: has only one edit other than this article and adding links to it in three others (all since reverted). User:Cl8390 has no edits other than this. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE! By deleting this article you will cause a massive blow to a large portion of our society. In doing so you will leave members of the 'bus' unguided and homeless.
  • DO NOT DELETE As a representative of Anheuser-Busch, I cannot allow you to delete this article. There is NO proof that the members of the 'bus' are underage consumers of alcoholic beverages. By deleting this article, the Party Bus will be destroyed and Anheuser-Busch, along with many other producers of alcoholic beverages, will suffer catastrophic financial damages. Shareholders and employees around the world will be devastated by your selfish and crude actions. PLEASE CONSIDER OTHERS' LIVES BEFORE YOU DESTROY THEM!
  • DO NOT DELETE This is a great reference which I believe one could use on almost a daily basis. By deleting this article, you would be restricting the knowledge of houndreds of thousands of Americans. This article is vital to the growth of our society and it MUST NOT BE DELETED.
  • DO NOT DELETE IT I believe this article is a binding reference for the people who are part of the 'bus'... by destroying this article, you would be destroying a part of them...
  • DO NOT DELETE: whats wrong with people having fun!?
  • Do Not Delete This 'bus' has a serious significantly meaning/role upon our country and world in its entirety. Due to the surrounding circumstances and open housings/beautiful resources of high schooling, the bus is able to roll with its system bumping hard. Yet a deletion will truly leave the nation in question of 'who truly rocks the bus harder than 08 itself?' stay classy, peace out kids,...poke smot
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Allen3 talk 03:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Hockey League[edit]

Hoax? An amateur league that extensive? Whatever, it does not seem to have come to fruition, and the external link (which is to a tripod page, by the way) is broken. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. I live in Delaware and I can assure you there is no such thing as the "Delaware Tide" hockey team, nor was such a thing planned. Plus all links to this term come back to this page. - Sensor 20:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, or at best unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted, apparantly. Jkelly 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy Davis Syndrome[edit]

Searching for Piggy Davis Syndrome gets me no significant hits, and the way this "syndrome" is described leads me to believe that this page only exists to make fun of someone. Mo0[talk] 05:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pone and Point of no erection (redirect)[edit]

Original research. No hits on Google for Pone in this context, or "Point of no erection." —Cleared as filed. 10:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not well documented on the internet but this is not original research. My friend Greg told me about it. Captain subtext 10:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and not based on hearsay. - Mgm|(talk) 19:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. After 20 standard drinks, death is more an issue than pone. Dlyons493 Talk 12:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. - Sensor 13:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject covered by Erectile dysfunction. GeeJo (t) (c) 13:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR encephalon 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm guessing the original author has considerably more experience of this than I do, judging by the prose style, but I still think it's a non-notable neologism. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Oddly, I don't see this described in Erectile dysfunction, though, which does not mention alcohol at all, and it only touched on lightly in Sexual dysfunction. Something about this should be said somewhere, if only to give an opportunity to quote Shakespere: "Macduff: What three things does drink especially provoke? Porter: Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him and it mars him; it sets him on and it takes him off; it persuades him and disheartens him; makes him stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and giving him the lie, leaves him." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under G4 (re-creation of previously deleted content). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porn tastes good[edit]

Advertising / other spam 70.122.87.59 21:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Advertising for website / vanity blog. 70.122.87.59 21:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear candidate for speedy! --Janke | Talk 21:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 21:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as G4 repost of article deleted today [[18]]. --JJay 21:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecy (Harry Potter)[edit]

Everything on this page is already at Sybill Trelawney and this seems unlikely to expand to anything else of value. Also, no one would ever type in such a title, imho. Delete. Hermione1980 00:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Merge content with another Harry Potter article as appropriate. Pintele Yid 01:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as noted above. Matt Yeager 01:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything of use is already in Sybill Trelawney and the rest is speculation as to what is in the final book. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hermione1980 is a model editor. She's already ensured that: 1) this content already exists elsewhere, and 2) there's already been talk page discussion about this, and it was agreed that this page is now redundant and unneccessary. Normally I would boldly speedy redirect this, but she wants other editors to review the article, and a redirect makes things slightly less convenient for them. My opinion is that she's already gotten consensus and could delete (or redirect) this at will. I favor a redirect, even if it's not useful, simply for the sake of it being reversable and reviewable by anyone, not just admins. However, if we're going to follow traditional Afd practice, we should wait 5 days and then delete this. Friday (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • [[superstition|traditional Afd practice]]
      I see what you did there. ;D - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, in the interest of reducing sycophancy slightly, perhaps I should point out that as far as I can see, it was my suggestion that this page should be merged, and my postings on three talk pages inviting comment. The only response so far was Hermione's proposal for deletion. While I do not disagree, that is not exactly a considered consensus and I suspect the absence of disagreement might have at least as much to do with no one noticing as anything else. However, i made the suggestion because while I thought one article discussing the prophecy was sensible, two was merely a confusion. If no one had commented after a while, I intended to turn it into a redirect and see what happened. I do doubt that the particular title is likely to be typed in, but someone searching for information on the prophecy (an important plot point, for anyone unfamiliar), might find it as a search result. Redirect, but support any consensus other than keep Sandpiper 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Friday. Even if the redirect isn't useful for searching, it's useful to discourage recreation and redirect anyone who was previously working on this article to the proper place. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per A Man in Black and Friday. Andreww 03:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out a couple of reasons that the redirect is useful. Anyone that sees the value of such redirects may be interested in an idea that would let any deletion (or undeletion) be handled this way: the "Pure wiki deletion system". See WP:PURE for details. (Couldn't resist the plug, sorry.) Friday (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect might be useful, but who's actually going to look for "Prophesy (Harry Potter)" over "Prophecy" or "Harry Potter"? my thoughts... -- WB 06:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote Jean-Luc Picard, Make it so!. Eh, Redirect. --Agamemnon2 08:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per everyone. Unless we can prevail upon Wikipedians to become sane and only cover factual subjects in this kind of detail? No, thought not. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's already at Sybill Trelawney a redirect is probably the best idea, to show context. Merging and redirecting to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would also be valid, but might bury the information too much. Make sure there's a incoming link from the Prophecy disambiguation to justify the qualifier. - Mgm|(talk) 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree with Hermione that this is a particularly poor redirect. I'd vote to delete. If there is an attempt to recreate a new page, it can be judged then on its merits; there is nothing to stop us from making it a redirect then, should such a need arise. I don't see that there is anything in the history logs worth preserving that is not already in Trelawney, so it seems to me that deleting the page is the wisest option. Regards encephalon 23:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I wrote the majority of content on this page. It was really just to edit the content it used to have as it wasn't really that great. As already said the content's already somewhere else, and the title of the page is poor, so frankly I don't really care if it gets deleted. -Dullaware 23:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R. Daneel Olivaw (Alias Unbound)[edit]

Isaac Asimov character appropriated for NN fanfic, which has been nominated for deletion separately. It only irritates me more that they can't spell Asimov's name correctly. Anville 23:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapier (Witham)[edit]

Band vanity and original research. [[Sam Korn]] 11:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, they seem like a good band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.165.56 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redeye (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, unverifiable. No indication on Google that it actually exists, and no indication that this band has given any performances or recorded any songs. —Cleared as filed. 09:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 20:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence of antonarian monotheistic concepts[edit]

I came across this doing disambig link repair. It's been sitting around since June as unverified. It's pretty... interesting. I suggest that it is unverifiable, um, "original research" and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jkelly 04:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete World renowned scholar Abaka Edmond gets 0 Google scholar hits [19]. Dlyons493 Talk 04:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for what it is worth, a presumably similar article was closed as a delete on May 30, but I cannot say if this is "substantially a recreation" of a previously deleted article. Jkelly 04:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bogus original research. Notice that all the "external links" are either internal links (which contain no relevant information) or links to mirrors. Superm401 | Talk 06:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Wow. - Sensor 11:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. encephalon 14:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was... well 2 delete, 1 merge is borderline. I am having a tough time seeing how this can be merged without cluttering up the suggested merge target of Venom (comics). I am calling this a delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riot (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Minor character in marvel comic strip. Does not pass WP:FICTION. jnothman talk 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasspeedied by Angr, per request. Xoloz 06:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Reger[edit]

Nominate and vote for speedy deletion per CSD A3 - article consists of external link only. - Sensor 22:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: why did you tag it for speedy deletion and then nominate it on AfD? -- Kjkolb 00:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Seddon[edit]

Unverifiable bio. Apparantly created by same user who created Arnold Mossup and St Piron (which has already been nominated for speedy deletion), and vandalized User:*drew's page. Dalbury 16:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, 95% certainty this is a hoax too - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Unverifiable. A search of the mentioned newspaper does not result in any hits for "Robert Seddon", apparent editor with a controversial article in 2005. ERcheck 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stinson[edit]

Non-notable. No real info of worth in article. One writer for a single movie (other writer has no article). Keryst 03:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Keryst 03:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--getting a single co-writing credit on a minor film doesn't make you notable. Meelar (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 04:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Boden[edit]

Just another bursar (there are thousands of them; they're minor financial functionaries). He had a little run in with Employment law over racial discrimination, and it was settled out of court. A nine-day wonder, if that, hardly noticed outside Keble, much less outside Oxford. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Mel Etitis"'s statement above does not provide adequate grounds for deletion. This story (and Boden's name) was reported in the national and international press - it is of significance in light of the current UK government's attempts to promote university education for all. Racial discrimination is an important topic and was brought to the fore by Boden's actions. Nobody is suggesting that this is the biggest story in the world, but it is well recognised by thousands of Keble and Oxford alumni. It is belittling, misleading, and offensive to describe Boden's actions as "a little run in" with the law - thereby not warranting publication. I strongly contest the above user's case for deletion. -- 18:45, 5 November 2005

  • Do not delete -- 18:45, 5 November 2005
  • Delete, 145 unique Google hits, and they are for several different people with the same name, including forum posts by someone with the name. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Its pretty obvious that 84.64.91.128 has an agenda against the nn subject of this article FRS 19:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong do not delete -- This is not the case. It seems that my above defence of the page has been ignored by Users Zoe and FRS. It seems that the would-be censors of the Roger Boden page are current Keble College members or associates of Boden who want to brush this under the carpet. What a pity - and surely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Boden is significant; I strongly object to the calls for the article's deletion. -- 84.64.91.128 20:21 5th November 2005
Since I haven't been editing here very long, it's possible that the above suggestion of impartiality could be taken seriously. It would be hard to prove the facts that I have never visited Oxford nor heard of Keble College. Fortunately, though, I've already opined on similar matters and expressed a strong view that slams of nn persons or businesses are intolerable and should be AfD'd or SD'd with all haste [20][21]
where an apparently or marginally non-notable subject is being put in a negative light, especially by anonymous editors, we should be quicker to delete b/c few editors will have the interest or knowledge to correct a negative PoV slant. And the subject of the article may unknowingly suffer a lot of damage b/c Google searches return links from WP associating the subject with some alleged wrongdoing. I'm glad to see this article being strongly opposed. If the incident the anon contributor wants to introduce is notable at all, it should be vetted at Keble College, Oxford where, presumably, those who have an interest and knowledge about it will be able to make sure views from both sides are adequately represent--FRS 01:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I have nothing to do with Keble College, for the record. - Sensor 20:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request -- If we take Sensor's claim not to be associated with Keble College in good faith, may we ask what are his/her grounds for the deletion of this article? -- 84.64.91.128 20:43 5th November 2005 (GMT)
    • Sensor wrote to delete "per nom", meaning "per nomination", or in other words, on the same grounds as those stated in the original nomination (see above). This is common phrasing in Articles for Deletion discussion. Please assume good faith on the part of the AfD voters. No vote on my part yet, though. --Metropolitan90 21:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, my vote is delete as non-notable and for the reasons cited by Just zis Guy. - Sensor 22:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I work less than ten minutes from Oxford and often read the Oxford Mail (even had letters published in it), I've never even heard of the man. College bursars are ten a penny. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation user Sensor. I have been looking into the claim made by user Zoe above. When I type "Roger Boden" in quotation marks into google.co.uk, a good number of results refer to Boden of Keble College. There is no question that there may be other people called Roger Boden, but this is not grounds for deletion. In addition to the Guardian online newspaper column reporting Boden's actions already posted on the disputed article, google.co.uk also shows me an article on a Race Rights website: [22]. The significance of Boden should not be denied or, if I may say, censored. -- 84.64.91.128 22:18 5th November 2005 (GMT)
  • Objection: "Just zis Guy, you know?" has already just censored the Roger Boden article by deleting half the contents, and is now requesting to have the article speedied. Although he may never have read about Roger Boden in the Oxford Mail, those of all who are involved with Equal Opportunities up and down the country are very aware of Boden and the associated discrimination case. I am dismayed that in this day and age (and moreover on a forum such as Wikipedia), other users choose to be so dismissive about such events and personnages. A pity indeed. -- 84.64.91.128 22:32 5th November 2005 (GMT)
    Comment: Please, 84.64.91.128, assume good faith on behalf of Wikipedia editors. Editing an article does not equal "censorship", especially inasmuch as Wikipedia is not a governmental entity. In any event, from the research I just did, albeit quickly, it appears that Mr Boden was indeed the plaintiff in a discrimination lawsuit. That, however, does not in and of itself make him notable. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines to notability to understand what is considered "notable". This is not to disparage Mr Boden's plight in any way; however, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not infinite. I hope this gives you a better understanding of the editing process. Thanks for participating, and please feel free to contribute in the future! - Sensor 22:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Good faith is assumed. Unfortunately, I am overcome with a sense of disillusionment. I wish you all luck with your deletions, etc.. -- 84.64.91.128 22:56 5th November 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete. Unimportant functionary who does not meet criteria for inclusion of biographies. If 84.64.91.128 believes this is an important event in the history of Keble College, Oxford, or that Keble has a documented history of race discrimination, 84.64.91.128 should add a note on it there, subject of course to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and citing sources. 84.64.91.128 should do this him- or herself. I am not going to recommend "merge and delete" because due to GFDL requirements this is laborious for the closing sysop. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Challenge: On the contrary, Roger Boden passes the google.co.uk test, and also fits the criterion of "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" -- 84.64.91.128 10:02 6th November 2005 (GMT)
I don't agree with your interpretation. There's no exactly threshold for the "Google test," but I get only 169 hits on exact phrase Robert Boden on google.co.uk returning only "pages from the UK:" [23] Many of them do not seem to be the same Roger Boden who is the the subject of this article. Is "Roger Boden, Oldbury" who took place in the 2003 Mensa games the same person? The genius sound and video production engineer? The Birmingham punk rocker? Searches on "Roger Boden" Keble, "Roger Boden" Cambridge, and "Roger Boden" Bursar get 130-150 hits or so. A completely unrestricted search on "Roger Boden" gives me only 343 hits. None of these are impressive.
As for newsworthiness, a search for "Roger Boden" on Google News returns only a single hit. For comparison, the goings-on of the Dedham, MA Dedham youth basketball program gets four.
I repeat, the incident might possibly belong in the Keble College, Oxford article, but the individual Roger Boden does not need a separate article. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final post: I disagree with your implied definitions of the words "impressive" and "newsworthiness". I no longer wish to spend my time on this earth defending the legitimacy of the article. Boden is significant - and those who fail to recognise this I can only describe as unfortunate souls. Whoever finally removes the Boden article should take a good hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask the question "Is this the right thing to do?", for I fear that you will have blood on your hands. I will never contribute to Wikipedia again in my life, as - with respect - it seems to be the domain of pedantic beings who lack spirit and vision. I bid you all good night. -- 84.64.91.128 18:19 6th November 2005 (GMT)
I suggest that you lack a sense of proportion. You will note that as "censored" no text was actually deleted. You will note that per Talk:Roger Boden I have told you why it was done. You appear to believe that we are unsympathetic: that is not so. You have been pointed to the rules for inclusion of biographical data. Wikipedia is not a campaigining organ, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV were all violated by the text excised. Fix them and the question of notability per WP:BIO remains. You won't persuade us by walking away. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rufio Rush[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. McPhail 01:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. Pintele Yid 01:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It returns some results from Google; nonetheless, non-notable. -- WB 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO - not a player in the major leagues, so not notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 01:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --- Paulley 14:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have thousands of articles on just about every cricket player who's ever played, for example, so why not a professional wrestler? HGB 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete FireFox (CVU) 09:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors inc[edit]

Blatant advertising for a hair and nail salon in Loudonville, New York. Destroy all ads. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 08:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Indium 08:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Advertising. *drew 09:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Advertising. Avalon 12:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Blatant advertising. Cynicism addict 12:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice as ad per nom. - Sensor 13:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. per everyone encephalon 14:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability. --Edcolins 16:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Prashanthns 17:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, nn. -- DS1953 talk 04:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. This movie is not scheduled for release until 2007, and absolutely nothing is actually known about it. NatusRoma 06:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this article should be deleted first and foremost. I have seen alot of people with questions unanswered about hopes of a third film. People who, unlike me, are too lazy to go out and search for the information themselves. I see this stub as a means of answering peoples' thoughts about a third film. This stub can possibly minimize one less "OMG SAW?!?!" and/or "Saw 3: S3W" type forum posts. It will also help debunk false information, such as the rumor of Saw 3 being titled "S3W".

A sidenote: all information posted about Saw 3 has some sort of proof/evidence linked to it. ie. Gregg Hoffman's statement of Saw 3 not being titled "S3W", Shawnee Smith's interview of not being actually confirmed for Saw 3, etc. (Unsigned, page-blanking comment by User:71.116.97.44 now inserted under nomination NatusRoma 06:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete unless a decent amount of concrete and verifiable evidence concerning the production of this movie is provided before the end of AfD. If deleted, recreate at a later date when such information becomes available. Saberwyn 07:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this gets a reasonable amount of hits, there is no verifiable information about this film as yet. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think at least the fact that the movie is not called S3W deserves a mention somewhere. If anything, perhaps Redirect this to Saw II, and leave a mention that Saw 3 isn't called S3W in there? Mo0[talk] 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speculation; no entry on IMDb at the moment. *drew 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Saw 2 and leave the verifiable bit of information in a section there until the production company or director start releasing information. - Mgm|(talk) 19:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too much speculation in this article, nothing is confirmed yet. - Gadgetfusion 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This comment was signed by User:68.170.210.45 [24] [25]. Are you User:Gadgetfusion, or an imposter? NatusRoma 18:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per User:MacGyverMagic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Saw II, primarily to help prevent premature recreation. Xoloz 06:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Saw II per WP:NOT. Ingoolemo talk 08:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why? For one, the existence was confirmed by the producer himself, on a message board. While there's no confirmed director/cast yet, it's somewhat pointless to delete an article that we all know will be warranted within months, if not weeks. It's confirmed, it's verified, so we should clean up the article to a better standard and expand as necessary. --badlydrawnjeff 15:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The problem with this article is that at the moment, it is nothing more than "Saw III is not..." and "Saw III may be...". That is the only kind of information we have regarding the movie at this point in time. Now if the article had a few "Saw III is..." statements in it, I would not hesitate to keep it, but until we get the 'positive' information we need, we should either delete this and recreate when that information becomes available, or tuck it out of the way somewhere until, again, that information is available. Saberwyn 07:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So we can't stub it and allow it to grow as we do with hundreds of other articles? The number one problem that we're seeing is verifibility, and it's verified. It's real. --badlydrawnjeff 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more verifiable than Farenheit 9/11 1/2.  Grue  15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put all speculative movie articles up for deletion. —Cleared as filed. 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is just fine as is. Saw 3 is going to be a movie, and there is speculation on wiki about minor events that are supposed to happen over 100 years from now. JONJONAUG 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as? Most "future" events on Wikipedia are fictional in nature. NatusRoma 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture-channel[edit]

Page covers a not-notable IRC channel and has no encyclopedic value. Leithp (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Your comment is not deleted; RasputinAXP moved it to the project talk page where it belongs. Don't be surprised if this one is moved there also. Rest assured that there is no conspiracy to pick on you. --TantalumTelluride 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* for above reasons. --Alicejenny 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this entry is totally against the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia and harms the reputation of the Wiki site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.82.212 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 November 2005
  • Comment I have moved the discussion from this page to where it belongs, on the talk subpage for this AfD. Please continue your arguements there, sockpuppets and all.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote to retain this article was deleted. I am now thoroughly sick of all Wikipedians. Endomion 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that was true, then a simple revert of this page would not result in my vote magically reappearing. Endomion 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, because I didn't understand what she was voting I moved it to the discussion page; I'll restore it now, see the discussion page for an explanation.  RasputinAXP  T C 23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Desire leads to suffering. I withdraw my vote to retain the article. Endomion 01:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture2-channel[edit]

An Undernet channel of no particular influence, importance, or notability. Individual IRC channels are not encyclopedic topics. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • #Scripture2 Undernet Channel, and its remarkable wikipedia links, are a critical tool in this "Information Age's" Christian evangelical history. Few religious environments truly accept those of any religious faith, to include accepting people with no religious faith whatsoever. The history of much of this world is predicated on a belief system where God is the Creator. I recommend that this Wikipedia article stay, as Christianity, God the Creator, in an integral part of the world's history, and Internet Chat is one of the most revolutionary, worldwide phenomenon's in this present "Information Age." #Scripture2 is the marriage of both. Unsigned comment by 70.161.170.109 (talk · contribs)
  • The Wikipedia rule that may apply is: "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article". Wikipedia does not recommend deletion in this case, but indicates: "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect" Endomion 02:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no article that would benefit from the addition of the information contained in this article. There's no article that would even benefit from a redirect from this title. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the link list alone is worth the price of admission, in my opinion. Endomion 02:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list of links seems to be bordering on linkspam, as far as I'm concerned, and has little bearing on the topic of the article (which still has no content worth merging into another article). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The tone of discussions above have convinced me that this is likely intended as an advertisement for the subject; but, in any case, Undernet channels strike me as falling in the same category as forums, which are generally not considered encyclopedic without strong notability. --Aquillion 04:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It breaks my heart that the serious and repetative vandalism perpetrated by (71.80.132.153), seems to have hurled this "Scripture2" Wikipedia article in question, into a status of 'worthy of deletion.' Afterall, it was nothing akin to other vulgar or joke Wikipedia articles I saw listed on your 'to be deleted list.' I plead with you to please, reconsider keeping this Scripture2 Wikipedia article alive, if not for all time, perhaps for a month or so, interim period of time, so that we may move the webpage elsewhere, should you ultimately decide to pull it down altogether. Thanks for your consideration, and I appreciate your hard work here at the Wikipedia website. Unsigned comment by 70.161.170.109 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete as soapbox. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • gosh, you all are tough :( Unsigned comment by 70.161.170.109 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete; nn, and it's nothing worth merging anywhere else.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this Scripture2 article be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undernet Unsigned comment by 70.161.170.109 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete There are zillions of IRC channels, why is this one notable? --StoatBringer 10:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By analogy, there are zillions of planets, but this one is notable because it has Wikipedians. Same goes for #scripture and #scripture2. Perhaps they are also notable for being the first IRC channels to be wiki-fied. Endomion 23:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StoatBringer @ Wikipedia

Excellent Point! I can see the problem now, and appreciate your specific feedback. I guess I got so wrapped up in the hard work and pride I have about #Scripture2 that I wasnt seeing the big picture.

BTW. I really appreciate the hard work you all have put into Wikipedia, and even your attention to this process for this #Scripture2 channel. More and more we chatters are drawn to Wikipedia to authenicate opinions, and even learn more about certain subjects. Wikipedia is a novel idea, opening it up to the input of the masses, and overseeing the integrity as you all do. Keep up the good work, and I apologize for being so "thick headed" about my beloved Christian Undernet channel. Take good care. God bless.

Signed: (heather.users.undernet.org)


  • Delete This Undernet channel is a minor spin-off channel started by a group of disgruntled guests of #Scripture, another much bigger Undernet channel. They couldn't even come up with an original name for their channel & they are constantly spamming ads for it on #Scripture and elsewhere (including this encyclopedia). It would be ludicrous to include this IRC channel, which has only a handful of regular attendees, on any online encyclopedia.
  • Delete Even though I am an occasional visitor to #Scripture2, I fail to see the significance of including it in the Wikipedia. Sorry Heather, that's just the way I view this. Weaponofmassinstruction 03:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Gaff ταλκ 04:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sendit.com[edit]

Nominate for deletion and vote for same as NN advertisingcruft. - Sensor 22:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 20:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Strike[edit]

This is presumably the same band that failed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Seventh Strike, possibly speedyable. Kappa 04:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. *drew 04:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable, I see no evidence they pass WP:Music, not on AMG... --W.marsh 04:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure it's the same as before (different band member names), but still not meeting WP:NMG. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Page was redirected. Rx StrangeLove 02:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shriek Symbiote (comics)[edit]

Pointless VFD, redirected to Shriek (comics), same character, already-existing article. Problem solved. --Chaosfeary 02:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smarking Out[edit]

Delete. Non-notable and possibly self-promotion. McPhail 16:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable --Oakster 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity podcastcruft. - Sensor 20:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make note to self to cross Apple off my Christmas card list for ever inventing the podcast, yet another source of never-to-be-notable vanity crap. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Podcast/website advertising. Vanity. ERcheck 22:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity self promotional...Dakota t e 22:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 15:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedball (sport)[edit]

NN sport invented by teachers at a high school in Arizona. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - and I dispute the game's originality too. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We had to play this 'sport' in my high school, and I grew up in Upstate New York. I suspect that many high schools in between had to as well. --Bletch 13:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case it probably wasn't invented by the people claimed in the article. Verification, anyone? - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add more information; I graduated high school in 1994, so this has been around for at least 14+ years. Maybe this is original research, but we've always suspected that this was a sport featured in some hypothetical magazine for gym teachers. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the author of this article went to the school where this sport originated. But then again, we suspected that it was our gym teachers that came up with the thing. --Bletch 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I played this is the late 60's early 70's in either England or Scotland. I don't think it was in school so I suspect it was in the Boy Scouts. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems the this sport was older than expected: at least according to this page, it originates in the 1920s. I have added this and other links to the page. I however agree with the nominator that the original version of the article made this sport look like something invented by two gym teachers in a small school. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--it's the sports equivalent of a conlang, but closer to Esperanto than "some random thing a college student came up with". Meelar (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given its history and it seems to have been played reasonably frequently. Capitalistroadster 17:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably notable. Deryck C. 09:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE (author blanked the article, so I'm assuming he doesn't want it userfied.) Robert T | @ | C 15:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

not notable. <5Ghits.

  • Userfy. Don't bite the newbies. - Sensor 00:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a . No further edits should be made 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stewielocks and the Three Griffins[edit]

I have no idea what this is trying to say. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not a crystal ball. Articles about future events can be written (example Super Bowl XLII to be held in 2008) but the article in question is just speculation. Redirect per DanMS is a better idea. --W.marsh 05:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Family Guy episodes. ♠DanMS 05:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing my vote. There does not seem to be any evidence that this really exists. ♠DanMS 02:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. per danMS. -- 06:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a Family Guy episode? Why would we want information about an episode that won't even be appearing till next year? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I would have voted to delete but I thought the ultra-inclusionists would jump all over this and demand it be kept, so I figured a redirect would pass muster. ♠DanMS 20:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please feel free to vote delete when there is no evidence it even exists at all (or if it exists it's probably a fanfic and not an official episode). One would have to be a fanatic inclusionist to demand keeping something like this. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Please. Peeper 12:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of this episode at either the official Family Guy website nor at [26]. (I will change my vote if someone shows me a credible source). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Cromulent Kwyjibo said, there's no evidence of an episode (or even a fanfic) with this title. All Google results for "Stewielocks and the Three Griffins" are Wikipedia pages. Robert Happelberg 16:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suffschuppen[edit]

With only 100 members and no claim of notability, I can't see this topic as being encyclopedic. Caerwine 19:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A small, non-notable club. Andrew pmk | Talk 20:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and quite likely unverifiable. Google turns up lots of hits, but they seem unrelated to the subject. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tiny ... club. Minimal context. Punkmorten 20:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. - Sensor 20:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'speedy deleted by User:Friday. Jkelly 04:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Giza[edit]

Can't find any third-party coverage on google. Kappa 04:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy userfied to User:Pav. If Kappa wants to delete, it's definitely a delete. :-) But, I userfied to be less harsh. Leaving Afd open for now, in case there's disagreement. Friday (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 03:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team of Destiny[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable Amway MLM team Ze miguel 18:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Items under dispute here:

  1. This article is not an advertisement (it is a simple statement of facts on a rather large, high rate of growth team within the Quixtar business)
  2. Team of Destiny is not Amway or Quixtar, nor is it Burger King, nor is it... Similarly, the Indianapolis Colts are not the Houston Texans, nor are the Colts the NFL. They are completely separate entities, although Team of Destiny agrees to work within the confines of Quixtar's rules.
  3. Amway is not Quixtar, they are two wholly separate business models.
  4. Team of Destiny is hardly "non-notable". The results Team of Destiny has achieved within the Quixtar business speak for themselves.

Barwick 16:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Keep - convinced by MPS -- Ze miguel 21:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN vanity. - Sensor 20:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Afd is entirely uncalled for. Team is a pretty big Amway/quixtar organization. It's one thing to say it's non-notable, it's another thing to say it's vanity. I am suspicious that somone just doesn't like that TOD is on wikipedia. Look at all the suspicious edits I have reverted that connect this organization to quixtar. MPS 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting those edits. How about a merge to Independent Business Owners (Amway) ? Ze miguel 10:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This raises a good philosophical question for wikipedia. It is granted that there are many Quixtar/Amway IBOs, and most of them are people, like John Smith of Farmville, Kansas, who has four downlines and has an annual business of $100,000 and specializes in selling SA8 and wrote a book called Leadership and the Revolution of the Internet. No, that would be non-notable. On the other hand, these people have a whole network of supposedly independent buyers and sellers that speak at conferences around the US and promote themselves as super duper successes who add kajillions to the US economy. My question is how should wikipedia document the notable elements of quixtar's business structure without documenting the army of non-notable John Smiths that form IBOs that comprise their workforce? MPS 20:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shrug. It's non-notable vanity. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You would be entirely surprised how many people do a web search for Team of Destiny, or the people who started it. It's an extremely high number. An unbiased opinion from a reputable source would be in order. The only sources for information on the Team of Destiny are pages that are created by people in the organization, or people who bitterly hate all things related to Quixtar for some reason or another. Many pages try to appear unbiased but are not. A simple, short Wikipedia entry would clear up confusion. Barwick 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless significance beyond the Amway/Quixtar world can be established. Paul 19:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I created the article Independent Business Owner. It is currently a stub but there is much that can be added to it. Paul 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the Skeptic's dictionary entry for Amway addresses Amway, Quixtar, and one IBO: Team of Destiny [27]. So I think that if there's one notable IBO, it's basically them.
        • Ze miguel - you should let us know who you are, especially if you are going to link to such a biased site Barwick 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Ze miguel; that link established TOD's notability within A/Q for me. I googled quixter "team" [28] and the fifth link is this one [29] which is a blog article about how a guy named Scott Larsen put up a site that provides detailed analysis of TOD's practices and was was sued by TOD for copyright infringement. Larson says in his site, Why did I select the Team of Destiny ® ? Of all the Quixtar Lines-of-Sponsorship I've studied, Team of Destiny ® is the most prolific of any LOS at publishing material, which can be easily criticized to conflict with pyramiding regulations. TOD was the only Quixtar group I know to publicly promote, and justify the money available from their system. That page has since been removed from public view, potentially at Quixtar's request. TOD distributes the profits from their Business Support Materials sales to participants as its own Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) opportunity6. He is saying that TOD puts out a lot of source material compared with other Lines of Sponsorship. This means to me that it should be easier to source/verify an article on TOD than it will for other Quixtar related entities. MPS 16:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do we discuss this? PaulHanson requested significance beyond the world of Quixtar (and why does it have to be significant beyond the world of Quixtar? I'm pretty sure there ARE people in Quixtar that would like to get some information on Team of Destiny. Barwick 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Discuss Paul's request by indenting underneath his comment. If it gets too long we can improvise another place to discuss.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tedmeister[edit]

Another made up word, googling Tedmeister "Father Ted" office gave 0 hits. feydey 12:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testface[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC and NN outside of Eugene, Oregon. Google gets 53 unique hits for "testface eugene". Delete --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark and The Light[edit]

Non-notable. The book doesn't appear to have any hits on Google or Amazon.com.The "author" Michael J. Bernard has an article also, which has no references. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Diary of Anne Frank 2: The Hidden Chapter[edit]

Fairly obvious hoax that claims that Anne Frank did not die in 1945. Delete as per WP:V. --Allen3 talk 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm excited! Nichole Kidman's playing Anne! jnothman talk 17:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, the well-known actress is Nicole Kidman. A Google search gets a grand total of 0 results see [30] so fails to meet WP:V. Capitalistroadster 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 17:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I called Tom Cruise up and asked him if any of this was true, and he informed me that Nicole had passed on the part. So did Katie. Seriously, this is about an absurd a hoax as my last few sentences. BD2412 T 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as utter bullshit. For what it's worth, IMDB confirms no such film exists or in the works. - Sensor 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -Locke Cole 21:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hoax. Carioca 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she married Elvis in 1993, and they're currently living in Peoria. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert for blatant hoax film. - Mgm|(talk) 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELTETE--there is nothing to confirm this. DELETE- not currently in production

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fishtank Casualties[edit]

Delete this as band vanity; meets no WP:MUSIC criteria. Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete FireFox -CVU- 09:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest college basketball game ever[edit]

Inherently POV title Austrian 15:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as {{nn-basketball}}. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV and NN. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and just zis guy, you know? — JIP | Talk 18:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it can be merged in an article on whatever tournament/championship this was part of. - Mgm|(talk) 23:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anything and everything about Duke basketball... and that goes for Kentucky, too. Edwardian 07:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Point Council[edit]

Non-notable, idiosyncratic, vanity, inappropriate, as well as poorly written. Jtc244 23:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, although I briefly considered it a candidate for BJAODN Naaah. - Sensor 23:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and associated pictures, per nom. jnothman talk 00:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity. Comments below make the case: Wikipedia is not the place for spreading the word. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of the page and co-founder of the council, I wish that this article remain here on Wikipedia. The Point Council is in fact real and active, and I had hoped to spread the word of it through Wikipedia as well as provide a historical documentation of it. I ask you to reconsider and keep this article, since taking it down makes you the man, and all the man does is walk all over the little guys. Urraco
  • Delete for the reasons above and add advertising. This is not about the little guy vs. the big guy but simply answering the question, is the article encylopedic? Vegaswikian 07:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group is a manifestation of the anti-consumerism subculture rising in the American youth. They have found a way to escape the bounds created by the excessive branding of entertainment in the world today; it's a way to escape the commercialization of fun. This article should be treated as a summarization of the unrest in the youth of white suburbia and their struggle to define themselves. In regards to its academic value, it serves as a case study of the aforementioned socio-economical group. Yanders 18:19, 7 November 2005


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by me. Hermione1980 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago Reis[edit]

Delete. Obvious vanity, created by user Thiagorodriguesreis. Definitely not notable. -- splot 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 03:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tian Yun Yao[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; I do not get why it was listed in the first place. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Got it now. Unverifiable. Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not meet deletion criteria mdd4696 16:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mythological heroes are notable. Carioca 22:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed my vote to delete), as it seems to be a hoax. Carioca 04:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This doesn't seem to google very well, I left a note at the Chinese wikipedians' noticeboard. Kappa 01:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a native Chinese speaker and I've googled the supposed Chinese name (姚天云). About 15 hits of random people with that name, nothing linked to mythology. The article appears to be a hoax. -- ran (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ran, I'll go with delete as unverifiable and possible hoax unless other evidence turns up. Kappa 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Vsion 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, probable hoax. Sam Vimes 10:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tokitae Lolita (orca)[edit]

Completely unencyclopediac. The subject is of dubious notablity anyway, and the article is a humiliation to Wikipedia. Just read the article, and tell me if that looks salvageable. Matt Yeager 01:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice rewrite of the article. Still needs a bit of work, but definitely not worth deleting now. Matt Yeager 05:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Weak delete It's been on cleanup since September, and the topic is marginal... I get 222 Google hits for Tokitae +orca. If anybody cares enough to do a decent cleanup job, go ahead, and I'll consider revising my vote (send me a talkpage message). Edit weak keep as rewritten. Definitely a whole lot better, though the subject matter is still somewhat marginal... a whale just doesn't have the sort of life or activities that a good biography can be written about. Perhaps a merge into the seaquarium article or an orca article is best. Still, congratulations to Zeimusu for cleaning the uncleanable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Orca in Miami Seaquarium. I don't know whether we have notability guidelines for animals but I doubt she meets them at present. Article is of poor quality. Keep. Kudos to Zeimusu for writing the article. Should me moved to Lolita (orca) as that ph rase gets 86,700 Google hits see [31].

Capitalistroadster 02:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I came across the article a month ago, but I didn't bring it to AfD because I thought people would feel badly about deleting it. They're suckers for orca interest stories. -- Kjkolb 04:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could be cleaned up I am willing to try..Dakota ? e 04:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at the image results from Google, it must a notable orca... why not. Expand. -- WB 06:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this thing is dripping with pathos and is utterly insipid. --Agamemnon2 08:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is unencyclopaedic and anthropomorphic. I would support a merge and redirect if there were an article on Miami Seaquarium, but there isn't. Or maybe someone could turn this into something like protests about captive marine mammals or something? But as-is it reads like Free Willy. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to keep as currently written and suggest move to Miami Seaquarium if there is anything else notable about the place. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 19:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*delete notability noy restablished by article, advertisement for a kind of cause, unsalvagable. --Isolani 12:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC) I change my vote to weak keep upon rewrite --Isolani 15:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete not notable Avalon 12:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewritten from scratch. The "Free Willy" tale has been entirly removed. This is the oldest captive orca and the second longest in captivity. There have been protests which make her notable. I get 496,000 google hits for "Lolita whale miami tank". There is a strong case for a page move to Lolita (orca) or something. Zeimusu | Talk page 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now rewritten, a good article, but the Lolita link needs to be fixed as it now goes to an article about the novel FRS 16:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this is not a very notable Orca, but I see nothing wrong with the article (other than the Lolita link). If someone writes an article about the Miami Seaqurium, this might be merged there. — JIP | Talk 18:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We99 18:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strongly redirect to Lolita (whale). This have been in the local news alot here in Miami. Notable whale --JAranda | watz sup 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. HGB 23:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable enough. —Cleared as filed. 12:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep FireFox CVU 09:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Aerodrome[edit]

Delete. An abandoned airport that no longer exists and is now a subway station. It operated for only eight years in the 1930s. Very short article: only two sentences. No notability claimed. This article would be better off as a short paragraph in a single article about all abandoned airports in Canada if such an article is deemed worthwhile. ♠DanMS 04:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all airports and/or subway stations, abandoned or not. Kappa 04:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Airports, abandoned or not, are notable. Carioca 04:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to expand. -- WB 06:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. That its run was short is, in its way, also a notable point in this case. Adbarnhart 07:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, airports are not inherently notable, particulary small, short lived airports. -- Kjkolb 07:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of abandoned airports in Canada, along with all the other airports listed in that list which do not have enough info for an article. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 08:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that it can be added to the list as well without this article being deleted, it'd just be a smaller version on the list to avoid redundancy. Karmafist 16:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per NSLE. - Sensor 11:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - few more words have been added by me to save the article. --Bhadani 12:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this airport was notable in that it served as an entry point into Canada and not because all airports are notable. Each airport that is abandoned may have to be considered for deletion. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This look like it can be expanded, and it sounds notable enough to be encyclopedic. Please expand it a bit though. Karmafist 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bhadani's rewrite and further expand. This airport appears to have been notable as it was once the major airport for Toronto, the biggest city in Canada. Capitalistroadster 18:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|(talk) 19:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real place, real article. Ejrrjs | What? 22:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster --JAranda | watz sup 01:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep historical airports and aerodromes.--Nicodemus75 06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand but keep; I have to agree with the majority here in that former airports are pretty damned notable, especially former main airports in major metropolitan centres. Bearcat 09:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic airport, notable even when closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect CDC (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Flying Club[edit]

Delete. This is a very short, one-sentence article about a defunct flying club that operated for a few years in the 1930s at an airport that no longer exists. No notability is claimed for this flying club. ♠DanMS 04:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A quick Google search reveals a number of hits that prove interesting. Article definitely needs to be expanded though. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 06:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded by someone who knows what they're on about, per Howcheng, merge and redirect to Toronto Aerodrome if this article is not expanded and Toronto Aerodrome survives deletion, delete if the above options fail to eventuate. Saberwyn 06:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Toronto Aerodrome and put in a section about it there. It appears that article is going to survive, and rightly so IMO. Karmafist
  • Merge and redirect per Karmafist. Not really worthy of an entry on its own. - Mgm|(talk) 19:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above --JAranda | watz sup 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. Notable enough for some mention; probably doesn't really need its own distinct article. Bearcat 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Karmafist. If anyone can build a real article later, then that is the time for a separate article, not now. -- DS1953 talk 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Karmafist. HGB 23:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. —Cleared as filed. 12:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy userfied to User:Landen99. Personal essay created in article space. Friday (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True Freedom[edit]

Essay/original research.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twin county pythons[edit]

Delete. This was a former children’s soccer team. No assertion of notability given. No details of the team given. DanMS 07:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Surprisingly, the existence of the subject appears to be verifiable, but this is a soccer team for boys under 10 years old. Such teams are inherently non-notable. Even if the subject were established as notable, the content of this article is not worth keeping: Some of the players numbers are 2,6,8,16,18,21,22,27,29,31. The players names will not be admitted. --Metropolitan90 08:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Metropolitan90. *drew 09:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 13:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A1. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VJ Juhi[edit]

Nominate and vote for speedy deletion per CSD A1. Article consists of one sentence fragment without any context at all. - Sensor 22:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as mis-spelled dictdef, no expansion potential. — JIP | Talk 18:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wack[edit]

(poorly written) Dic def. No content.

  • Delete per nom. jnothman talk 13:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly and inaccurately written. "Wack" is a term of affection in Liverpool. The author of this poor quality dicdef couldn't even spell "Whack". Delete, speedily as {{empty}} if possible. 14:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 14:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useless dictionary definition. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as utter crap. FCYTravis 13:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiracist[edit]

Article doesn't belong in the article namespace, imo. Aecis praatpaal 13:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 03:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle Rant[edit]

Delete. Non-notable and possibly self-promotion. McPhail 16:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable --Oakster 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity podcastcruft. - Sensor 20:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Www.frontiernet.net/~jle25[edit]

Lacks information about the topic's importance. Appears to be a vanity page more than anything else. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 02:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xinmin Secondary School[edit]

This article was created for the purpose of showing off the School Excellence Award that the school had achieved. No information of the school was provided after. yxTay 15:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - yxTay 15:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Precedent is that schools can be kept, this one seems more notable than many. I've rewritten somewhat. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The School Excellence Award is a reason to keep this rather than a reason for deletion. CalJW 17:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination does not conform with established deletion criteria. --Centauri 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all schools belong to wikipedia. Ejrrjs | What? 22:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have other schools articles. Carioca 22:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have articles on companies too, but that's no reason to keep every article about a company. Please rate the article on its individual merits. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article has the merit of providing users with information about a secondary school. Kappa 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is teaching in 4 different languages common in the area? What area is the school excellence award awarded in what is it given for? - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All schools in Singapore use English (a compulsory subject) as the first language. There is also a compulsory 'mother tongue' subject (maybe exempted in some cases) such as zh, ms, ta. *drew 00:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a national award for overall academic and non-academic achievement. This year, only two secondary schools were given this highest school honour in the country; and for a neighbourhood school to win this, it is very notable indeed. [32] --Vsion 02:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. --JAranda | watz sup 02:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 02:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vsion's information. Recipient of important national award. But PLEASE expand past stub level. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the usual reasons, just as we have done with the past 300+ school-related articles which were about verifiable primary schools or greater. There is no consensus to delete secondary schools, please do not nominate them for deletion. If you are concerned about the content of any given article, you are empowered to be WP:BOLD and expand it rather than further bog down the AFD system. Silensor 23:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Drastically expand. This is a highschool and because of devoloping consensus at WP:SCH it should be kept. However this article barely deserves the name and needs immediate attention.Gateman1997 18:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please it is important Yuckfoo 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yenom records[edit]

Non-notable profile written by anon with no wikilinks. Less than 50 results in Google. -- Perfecto Canada 20:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN mdd4696 16:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Digging through Google hits finds a recording label that apparently is using person webpages and AOL email addresses to conduct its business, with no indication that the press or music stores have noticed the label. Based on this information, the article does not appear to has any reliable sources to provide verification. --Allen3 talk 03:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Onischuk[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_5&oldid=1081093268"