Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 12 October 14 >

Purge server cache

October 13[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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.  Denelson83  03:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup[edit]

Textbook crystalballery. Right now, it's unsourced speculation about a future dispute (which has yet to arise, as far as I can tell) over the location of an event six years in the future. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just to make it perfectly unambiguous: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Why isn't this a criteria for a speedy? / Peter Isotalo 21:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the development of this debate shows exactly why it isn't, and should never be, a speedy. Xoloz 17:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article makes clear, it's just become a very important dispute in the world of cricket politics. See [1] for example. I should add that since we were both on IRC at the time, and I explicitly mentioned this article as one that did have substance, I'm surprised you did not discuss the matter with me rather than list this article for deletion. I'd have happily explained the point, jguk 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see any comments to that effect in IRC; granted, I was busy quibbling over the merits of assault rifles at the time. If this is the only relevant fact and preparation won't begin for years yet, why is this not a minor mention in Cricket World Cup? Why is even documented speculation about a future dispute meritorious of a standalone article? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have pruned the most speculative parts of the article. What remains would be hard to source, as it is undoubtedly common knowledge in cricketing circles. I would recommend the addition of a source for "it came to the media's attention that the Asian nations, led by India may put in a bid that almost certainly would be able to outvote Australia's claim instead". While this is certainly true, it would help to have a source. [[Sam Korn]] 21:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arg, Jguk (and now Sam!), you beat me to it! Here's my site [2]. Of the latest news when I looked at this site 4 of the lead stories (out of 15) where about the 2011 World cup. It seems like a big deal. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak transwiki to Wikinews? Seems like it MAY be appropriate there... Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant here, since it is clear that this event is going to take place and much of the palnning and jockeying for votes has already started. It's fairly big news in several parts of the world already, and Cricinfo regularly has quite a bit of news and information about it. Grutness...wha? 00:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an event that will certainly happen, and is currently big news because of the political wrangling taking place over it. -dmmaus 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Grutness. Carioca 01:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: we have Football World Cup 2010, so the fact that it's a number of years away falls down. And as others have said, this is an argument of considerable importance in cricket politics, since the increasing influence of the subcontinental countries is in itself a story - enough so that anyone who reads Cricinfo (ie most cricket followers) will be reading a good deal about it. Loganberry (Talk) 01:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Grutness. This event really will happen, which means it's not just blind prognosticating. PacknCanes 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, see 2016 Summer Olympics (venue to decided). The 2011 Cricket World Cup will happen, it's only a question of where. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an event that is likely to happen, so it isn't a crystal ball thing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; controversy is real, sourced, and a matter of some international interest. "Crystal ball" would be if the article attempted to assert or predict the actual outcome. MCB 06:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: real event, real row going on, no crystal ball required. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nuff sed. ---Peripatetic 08:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tintin 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per points made above.--Vivenot 16:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness. Xoloz 17:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 2011 is just a wee bit too far in the future. I mean, really, 2011? that is half a dozen years from now. One or two years is perfectly fine, but 6? Again, very strong delete. Masterhatch 10:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Masterhatch, your point is undermined by the fact that there are articles for the 2012 Summer Olympics and 2016 Summer Olympics.--Vivenot 17:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into a broader article on cricket politics. Cool3 04:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's going to happen, just like other upcoming major sporting events. --A bit iffy 12:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the content of the article should be changed, but the article itself should still exist, as qualification has already begun --DavidEdwards 15:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Lots of good information for Cricket & Sport lovers. Bwfc 23:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It doesn't matter how far it is in the future. If it is being discussed about now, then an article is written about it now DaGizza Chat (c) 11:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous). --Scimitar parley 15:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2309[edit]

Not only is this a one-line stub about one minor fact about a fictional character, it's an incorrect one-line-stub about one minor fact about a fictional character, as Jean-Luc Picard says that he was born in 2305. There's no useful information to merge and the redirect would be totally worthless. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No scheduled events, perhaps some astronomical events but those should be in century articles if they are this far in the future. Gerrit CUTEDH 16:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now unless someone can add an astronomical event or a correct fictional reference for the year. 23skidoo 18:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instead of wasting servers on this, they could add the one sentence to the Star Trek page.Rhetoricalwater 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no comment needed Masterhatch 10:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worthy of a merge, but this inofrmation could be placed in a broader Star Trek article. Cool3 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - 18 keep/15 delete (merge and move votes counted as keep) - 8 plain keep votes, 10 merge (including merge/redirect), 2 votes to just redirect. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


9814072356[edit]

Delete; a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, being the largest square number using the digits 0-9 is notable. Kappa 02:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless I'm mistaken, the representation of a number's digits in base 10 has rather little to do with any mathematically interesting (i.e. notable) properties it might have. Write it in binary, say, and the same number is suddenly much less interesting. What's next? The largest square number using only digits 0-8, 0-7, etc? Largest square number using digits 0-5 exactly once in base 6? Really now. flowersofnight 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's next? Delete 666 because it's not mathematically interesting? Kappa 02:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 668: The neighbor of The Beast -- George Carlin -- Qaz (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 666 is in here for reasons other than mathematical interest. Lord Bob 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 666 isn't an apt comparison though, seeing as it's famous as the "number of the beast", and not just the fact that it's three 6's in a row. 9814072356 lays no claim to cultural significance, so it needs to be judged on how interesting it is mathematically. My point, I suppose, is that this article makes no claim to mathematical notability. It just points out a quirk of the way we write the number in base 10 - which is only one of many ways to write it. flowersofnight 03:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable number. I mean, I kinda like the '1407' in there, it really adds a certain je ne sais whatever, but still... Lord Bob 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa abakharev 05:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real number, interesting properties. Klonimus 22:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this number is trivial and non-notable, and certainly won't ever have a page like 666 (number), nor any of the other numbers the Wikiproject is working on. In fact, it probably won't ever get beyond this one line. Perhaps it can be merged into another article, like square number, as trivia? Baryonyx 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with square number and redirect. Certainly do not keep. Proto t c 08:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't conceive of somebody typing in this number in a search box, without aleady knowing its "signficance". --rob 09:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, per nomination and also because Wikipedia is not infinite. (Note, in particular, the interesting number paradox) -- Peruvianllama 09:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia is very big. We only have about 245 integer number articles. And that we take more space with an AfD thn the article does. And that 427 (number) quoted as an example by Uncle G was speedied because it looked like nonsense. In fact someone had put "square furlongs" as the unit, when it should have been cubic inches. Rich Farmbrough 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted when counting, user has 12 edits all of which are to AFD's. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with square number. Redirect if you must, though like Thivierr I can't imaging anyone thinking "Hmm. I wonder if the number nine billion eight hundred and fourteen million seventy-two thousand three hundred and fifty six has any interesting mathematical properties" and typing it into the search bar. --Last Malthusian 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More likely, why did I write down 9814072356? Or having discovered one of it's properties, wanting ito know if it has more. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not in the Book. Pilatus 15:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't bother merging or redirecting, delete. The square numbers page already has lots of examples, none of which have separate redirect pages. -- Corvus 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Corvus. I find the idea of merging this into the article on square numbers silly. If I type the number in the search box and I get an article on square numbers, does that make sense? Why not the article on pandigital numbers? Why not the article about integers? Anton Mravcek 21:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly why it needs its own short article. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into square number as above. The reason why we must also redirect has to do with the GFDL, not functionality - since we can't merge histories we can't merge then delete. ESkog | Talk 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete One interesting property is not enough to justify an article. This number is not even listed in the OEIS. The one interesting property can be mentioned in the page on 10^10, which has a listing for selected 10-digit numbers. PrimeFan 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Keep but move per consistency with other number articles. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it is mentioned on OEIS : twice. Rich Farmbrough 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. It shows up with Advanced Search. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agreeing with above. Otherwise this should be deleted. Dottore So 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By deleting we get rid of a history which consists of an anonymous user putting down one bald line about a number with just one interesting tidbit to it, followed by logged users condescending on the anonymous user, finally leading to a deletion nomination. I won't cry to see that go. Anton Mravcek 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. First, a dicdef at best. Second, NN. Third, it is named wrong. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), articles for years have pure number titles, just like 2005, 1945, 476 and 3. This article should be about the year AD 9814072356. Redirect to 9814072nd century? --A D Monroe III 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Should be moved to ~(number) Rich Farmbrough 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into square number. It is notable, but only for those researching square numbers. It is not substantial enough for its own article.Dotto 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above or move. JYolkowski // talk 02:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, not because I don't think it's notable enough to merit its own page (honestly, I am not sure of that either way), but because I think it's much more likely that someone will search for this information in square number. I have no problem with a redirect, though, in case someone does search for the specific number, because reidrects are cheap. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A D Monroe III. NatusRoma 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having no particular cultural, historical, or mathematical interest. It does some little tricks, but don't all big numbers? MCB 05:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough, all big numbers like this have a few fancy facts.Rhetoricalwater 05:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into square number. Like several others, I feel there's a small chance this information may be of some use to those researching square numbers -- but it does not deserve its own article. Engineer Bob 07:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Of minor interest as a base ten number, though I cannot imagine anyone searching for this number without already knowing its significance. Oh, what the heck. Delete. Denni☯ 07:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - but rename as 9814072356 (number). Qualifies for its own article under the remarkable mathematical property criteria. Can't see any criteria that say a number must have more than one remarkable property to qualify for its own article. Could be expanded to a more general article on pandigital squares or pandigital powers. Definitely do not delete - it contains some really interesting information. Gandalf61 11:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking of the part that says "As a guideline, you ought to know at least three interesting properties of a number. (What constitutes interesting can be debated, but the point is that the careless creation of number article stubs is to be avoided.)" I don't see three interesting properties in this article. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A proven Sierpinski number would be remarkable. A counterexample to Poincare's conjecture would be remarkable. An odd perfect number would deserve its own article even if it was very dull otherwise. But a square that is pandigital in one base? Interesting is as far as I'll call it. Now, if it was pandigital in several consecutive bases, that might be remarkable. PrimeFan 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming you mean using each digit exactly once, it is impossible for a number to be pandigital in more than one base. If you allow repeats then the number in question fits the bill for bases 1,2,3,4. Rich Farmbrough 17:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I for one would find it interesting if this number was pandigital (even with repeats) in every base up to the largest base for which it would be reasonable to expect pandigitality (sort of like a strictly non-palindromic number n is not palindromic in any base from 2 to n - 2, while in base n - 1 it must be "11"). But it fails the test at 5, and I don't find that all that interesting. Anton Mravcek 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did not completely think that one through, but I was going in the direction suggested by Anton. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This number has just one remarkable property, which I'd classify as mildly interesting at most, and which is listed at other places. The other properties listed in the article need to go, IMHO. I think a redirect to square number would be confusing; perhaps redirect to 1000000000 (number) where other 10-digit numbers are listed. I seriously doubt that the GFDL requires a redirect in this case since mathematical facts are not copyrightable. Only a weak delete since the number is apparently listed in some other books. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC, it's quite commonly mentioned in math puzzle books, like Rouse Ball's. Septentrionalis 22:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a) as this stands, this is a year, not a number. b) it is not an exceptionally interesting number (or year, as far as is knowable). Xoloz 16:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename for consistency with other numbers. Its a) the largest pandigital square without repeats, b) its the square of a stroborgammatic number and c) I promise I will find one more interesting thing about it so we can just drop the not enough intersting things argument. Numerao 22:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep this as a unique article please it does not have to be merged Yuckfoo 23:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per it is mentioned on OEIS, and per Kappa. Also, it may not be mathematically interesting, but neither is 31, or 7, so why don't we delete those if we're deleting this. We've already taken up at least twice the space of the article with this debate. Scythe33 01:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting, unique, harmless. 24.241.227.251 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote discounted when closing, IP's while encourged to comment cannot have their votes counted. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention? Even though you may want to delete it, there is no reason to completely ignore it.
User's vote discounted when tallying, user only has 7 edits, 2 of which are to this RFA. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous). --Scimitar parley 15:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Journey Into Psychosis[edit]

nom&vote delete as appears to be nn and vanity. I found the link to the actual text at http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2313325/1/ the link to the author's bio appears to be dead. Does not appear remotely encyclopedic. Daniel Lotspeich 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- unremarkable description of nonnotable fanfic. Eaglizard 12:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Eaglizard and nominator. Nick Bush 20:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fanfic. MCB 05:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE A7 -Doc (?) 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Corbin[edit]

Tenth graders who enjoy walks on the beach are not, in the final analysis, something that encyclopedias are full of, and that's for a good reason. -- Captain Disdain 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (unanimous)--Scimitar parley 16:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All boro kings[edit]

Nom and vote delete. Nothing notable listed in article for this album. The band name has 4 prior deleted articles in WP but no current article. If the band had an article, could merge this and spare deletion. Daniel Lotspeich 03:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete per nom Jkelly 16:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (7d, 1k)--Scimitar parley 19:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy linn[edit]

Non-notable bio. User:JYolkowski thinks he is notable so I am bringing it here. -- RHaworth 10:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. --GraemeL (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he isn't notable yet. -- Kjkolb 14:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I know a few hundred socialists here at KU who are chomping at the bit for their own article as well... ESkog | Talk 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... he's not even notable in Detroit. No support in article for claims of notability other than membership in activist groups and a non-notable musical release.--Isotope23 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I didn't say that he's notable, but rather that the article asserts notability. Delete unless references added by end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 20:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but agree with JY, not a speedy. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Save"", i happen to know of the guy. he's a figure around these parts. i originally made the article, seems like there's some debate about Linn among your cats, though. i'm sort of newer to wikipedia, what kind of references are neccessary to prove notariety? thanks -james
  • Delete local figure isn't equal to notable in the historic sense. Best of luck to him and his causes, but sorry, we can't list 'em all, we're too close to critical mass. Pete.Hurd 05:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as notable. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 05:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley[edit]

If Sonja Elen Kisa and Tim Shell aren't notable (and I'm starting to believe they aren't, either, not trying to make a point), neither is Angela. Angela is a great user, but I don't believe she is notable, either. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 17:56, 13 October 2005 (CDT)

  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Wikimedia] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to have notability outside of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell for the long version! --Phroziac(talk) 01:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons I stated in the previous VfD. If anyone wants to merge that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Angela is like a Wiki celebrity. She's worked with Jimbo, and started alot of Wiki things. Let the woman have a page.Rhetoricalwater 05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same vote as ~6.3 months ago. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-14 T 07:27:47 Z
  • Keep Angela's been around since God wore short pants, and I think it's reasonable to bend the rules for one of Wikipedia's elder stateswomen. Denni☯ 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Reasonable to bend the rules for one of Wikipedia's elder stateswomen'. Why? Proto t c 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable user and board member. Angela has been in articles about Wikipedia. Rhobite 13:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. see my argument at Tim Shell AfD. Xoloz 17:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as this figure appears to be a significant figure within her field. [3] We should not "bend the rules" for anyone, regardless of their affiliation with Wikipedia, when it comes to determining if a subject is encyclopedic or not. Hall Monitor 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful. There's another Angela Beesley that that search turns up, and you are excluding articles that mention her in connection with Wikipedia. Fine-tuning a Google Web search is actually somewhat tricky in this case. Uncle G 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "Angela has been in articles about Wikipedia". Kappa 23:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please she is a celebrity we do not need to be biased against people on wikipedia really Yuckfoo 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is it just me, or is there not much point in relisting this? I mean, fundamentally nothing has changed in the last six months, either about Angela's notability (or lack thereof) or the content of the article... Shimgray | talk | 00:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Denni. -- DS1953 04:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure she's great, but this looks much like Wikipedia self-adulation. Martg76 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep want to know who is who in Wikipedia --133.44.1.220 14:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best guide to notability, be it of people, companies, software, products, or web sites, is whether other people, independent of the subject itself, have considered the subject to be notable. The litmus test for that, outlined to greater or lesser extent in all of our various notability criteria (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and so forth) is whether the subject has been written about in multiple separate published works that whose sources are independent of the subject xyrself. (WP:BIO talks about press coverage and independent biographies. WP:WEB talks about media attention. WP:CORP uses the broad term of published works, and is explicit about excluding self-promotion.)

    Furthermore, as Geogre says, it is a disservice to AFD and to the encyclopaedia as a whole to apply criteria erratically and inconsistently. It is wrong to hold the Wikimedia Foundation, its board members, and its web sites to standards that are different to the standards to which one holds other companies, people, and web sites.

    It is also wrong to argue that "If Tim Shell isn't notable then neither is Angela Beesley.". The two are very different cases, as research shows. Researching this person, I find that unlike Tim Shell Angela is the subject of multiple works published by people independent of Angela, Wikia, Wikipedia, or the Wikimedia Foundation. Angela is quoted in reports, and conference sessions given by her are published and commented upon.

    As such, unlike Tim Shell Angela does satisfy the criteria for notability. Keep. Uncle G 17:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Tim Shell on the Google test, he gets 14,600 hits. This satisifies notability for me. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 15:27, 17 October 2005 (CDT)
  • Weak Keep I don't think she has general notability on her own, but she does have notability in Wikicircles which would at least give her a subsection of some sort somewhere ("Board Members of Wikimedia" or something like that), and quite frankly, i'm unsure of the perception of whether or not board members of corporations truly are notable or not after the Tim Shell Afd, and none of the criterion pages help the decision on that factor, so i'm erring on the side of caution. Karmafist 17:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy not recognized outside of wikipedia. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Uncle G, but strongly oppose any arguments that she deserves inclusion because this is Wikipedia and she works on Wikipedia. ~~ N (t/c) 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous)--Scimitar parley 19:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ARM ChaOS[edit]

This is an inactive project, which hasn't released anything since it was founded in 2004. It has pages in SourceForge. The mailing list is empty, the forum is empty, no news, nothing. -Hapsiainen 18:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move request to WP:RFD --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Azad_(rapper[edit]

useless redirect Sigorni 07:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete By my count there are 12 votes to delete and 5 votes to keep, but three of those 5 keep votes are suspect. Even if I counted them all, there is better than a 2/3rds consensus to delete.--Scimitar parley 19:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balagangadhara[edit]

Relisting based upon slightly irregular closure. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete - Returning spam - user added this link for Dr. Balagangadhara to several religion and secular articles - advertises a web site that isn't even built yet. -Tεxτurε 19:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    List of articles edited to link to this advert:
    14:40, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Religious pluralism (→See also)
    14:36, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Comparative religion
    14:34, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Christianity and world religions (→See also)
    14:26, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularization
    14:18, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism (→The secular ethic)
    14:17, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism
    14:14, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Secularism (→See also)
    14:01, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Balagangadhara
    13:59, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Major world religions
    13:57, 28 September 2005 (hist) (diff) List of religions
  • Delete - I have to go with nonnotable. Maybe an article when there's some sort of notability shown (but even then most of the links that were added are just out of line), but until then keeping it is a bad idea and encourages spam. DreamGuy 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Administrators,
  • It is true that the website is not complete, but nevertheless it does offer a good view of the Research Centre's activities (e.g. programme, research group, forum). Please tell me if the link to the Research Centre is a problem and I will delete it. Please inform me about the reason(s) why (often very discreet) links to the Balagangadhara-wikipage on wikipages/topics that Balagangadhara and the Centre extensively discuss in their research are considered spam.
  • Sincerely,
  • Jeroen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.83.4 (talk • contribs) , at 20:21, 2005 September 28
    Is this your website or are you associated with this website? - Tεxτurε 20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. I am just an interested reader. Jeroen
  • Instead of saying whether it is spam or not (that is, one way of filtering articles in journals as well), Balagangadhara is the first scholar who has solved anomalies of existing theories of religion, not within the dominant understanding, but by putting forward a non adhoc hypothesis. As a student of philsophy of sciences, I urge those who wanted to delete as spam the information about this hypothesis , to challenge the hypothesis. Of course, there are many theories of religion whose background knowledge is "religion is cultural universal". Balangangadhara has challenged these background theoritical claims. However, deleting such information on wikipedia does not negate the heuristic power of that hypothesis.
  • Best, Victor Kavinsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.164.68 (talk • contribs) , at 17:42, 2005 October 3
  • Keep - This article is 'different' because it questions some 'universal truths', but does that mean it is spam? It's dense, a lot of information in a concentrated way, difficult to understand from the first time. But it seems to be all true when you think about it. Give it a chance and read it again. TV 81.247.195.58 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – don't see how non-notable he is. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an interesting and noteworthy topic. However, the article needs to be cleaned up to offer some more sources and more wikilinks added. - Sensor 03:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question to answer is always the same: are there independent, reputable sources focused on the subject (ie. Dr. Balagangadhara) that can be used as a basis to write an encyclopedic article on him that abides by the article policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V? We cannot write an encyclopedic article without sources. Some newer guidelines, written with the intention of providing assistance, do the opposite—they have the requirement exactly the wrong way around. The question is not "has this person written a book or two?", it's "has anyone written a book on this person?" Or a newsreport? Or a magazine interview? Or a thesis? If someone has written stuff on him that has gone through the peer-review and fact-checking process that Wikipedia by its very nature cannot undertake on its own, then those works can be used as a basis for a WP article, and referenced at the end. If there are no such sources, the article cannot be written (without contravening WP:NOR and WP:V). Because he is an academic, there probably exist critiques of his work (I can see indications of this on his website); these can be used as sources for one view (his) in an article on Comparative religion, or Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions, or something similar. But I'm unable to see that there are works on him (ie. that catalogue his birth and childhood, family, education, influences, contributions, etc, for example). Delete (without prejudice to suitably sourced material being added to alternative articles such as those mentioned). encephalon 09:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, per Encephalon - While well-argued and very interesting, the article describes a recently-proffered (and hence non-peer-reviewed and non-notable) sociological theory. If Dr. Balagangadhara's book garners attention in scientific circles, its theories will certainly be worth an article. But not as of now. Eaglizard 13:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Encephalon's request to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, several secondary, scientific sources that discuss Balagangadhara's work have been referenced. - 213.224.83.4 08:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC){note 213.224.83.4 has voted above as Jeroen.}[reply]
    • That was a very good effort, Jeroen. Thank you. However, I went through each, and they are all works which concern Balagangadhara's specialty—they are not works on him. They are excellent sources for
      1. an article on the book The Heathen in His Blindness... (which, by the way, I urge you to write unless you are yourself Dr. Balagangadhara)
      2. an article on the subject of Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions (which I'd encourage you to contribute to and expand)
    • However, the extreme paucity (I suspect non-existence) of articles or works on Balagangadhara as a person lead me to believe that the article Balagangadhara can only be non-encyclopedic (at least for now). The perfect indication of this of course is simply the current article on that page: it is entirely on the subject he teaches and researches, not on him. For examples of adequate autobiographical articles, see Ludwig Wittgenstein, or Ludwig van Beethoven. Notice how the articles describe the person—birth, early childhood, family, ancestry, life experiences, etc. They can do this because the subjects are well studied, as persons. I suspect it will be impossible to do this with Balagangadhara (for now, at any rate).
    • There are some Wikipedians who'd suggest that we can still create a WP:Stub at Balangangadhara. This is one possibility, but I think it is a poor choice because it does not maximise the available fund of knowledge that we have here. If it were up to me, this is what I'd urge: 1. Create an article at The Heathen in His Blindness.... A very good article can be written here, because of the wealth of commentary on the work. 2. Expand Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions; you could use much of the same material. It will not be sufficient for an exhaustive treatment, but a lot of it can be fleshed out. You can cross-reference the articles. 3. Create a redirect at S.N. Balangangadhara and point it to The Heathen in His Blindness.... 4. Delete the Balagangadhara page. I do not recommend a merge and redirect because this is actually a surname (right?) and I think a redirect with the full name is better. (Having an article with just the surname is in any case a violation of WP:MOS). This scheme maximises the benefit to readers interested in the person and the subject, as all available, verifiable information is placed in context. Regards encephalon 18:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. sockpuppet fest. Xoloz 17:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that his work has not been peer reviewed. 17:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - This unsigned user, Bsault, has only edited the article and this AfD. - Tεxτurε 18:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there. No one has suggested that his work has not been peer-reviewed. Clearly, it has. But peer-review of a person's proffesional work only is not a sufficient basis for a biographical account. encephalon 18:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eaglizard said it is not peer reviewed; besides that, he says it is one of sociological theories. Sociological theories give social explanation as to why religon is cultural universal. Balagangadhara did not proffer such theory. His theory merely solves the existing anomalies of all theories of religion, one such anomaly is the theological and secular assumption that religion is a cultural universal. Bsault, 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

How about asking about him on the Belgian noticeboard? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The person in dispute is not a non-notable person; he is well known in religious studies, postcolonial, postmodern studies: however, he is not any of them, but he is a philosopher of science. Those who never heard of him can say his theories are not peer-reviewed, or that his theory is some other crackpot theory appearing on internet. If I dont know something, I dont go over to some delete-talk discussion and say delete. One can add biographical information of Balagangadhara, and link to it from the theory (create another link) he put forward. Dave 171.65.195.248 04:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bel Air Middle School (2nd nomination)

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (obviously). -Doc (?) 07:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Air Middle School[edit]

Non-noteworthy single school, almost nil information, and is not encyclopedia worthy. Unless I can make short articles about all my elementary and Jr. High schools, that is. Coolgamer 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Old vote results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bel_Air_Middle_School[reply]

  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article survived VfD several months ago and the article has not changed substantially. Why do we have to vote on it again? Is it necessary to keep voting on articles until "those who routinely nomianate and vote to delete schools" achieve a result they would like?--Nicodemus75 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' I'm always in favor of keeping stubs on the grounds that they might be expanded. The title could be more specific, but I guess that's what disambig pages are for. —Clarknova 04:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Please stop pointless nominations. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks notability and does not show that it is encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful school article. Regarding comments on the lack of content: Wikipedia:Deletion policy states that if the reason you wish to delete an article is because the "Article needs improvement" or "Article needs a lot of improvement" the appropriate action is to "List on Wikipedia:Cleanup" or "List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention"; *instead* of nominating. --rob 07:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Added: To the nominator, I hope you don't make very short articles on the schools you attended, but you're definately more than welcome to create good articles on them. Rest assured, if you do, they will be kept. Verifiable real schools are now included in wikipedia at a rate of about 100%. In September 63 schools were nominated, and the only one deleted was a hoax. So, rest assured new school articles are welcome. --rob 07:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to rename the article to Bennettites. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bennettitis[edit]

Page contains no information

*Deletion This page contains no useful information. I would have merged this page with the text on the Bennettitales except that neither of the leading texts on fossil plants (Stewart & Rothwell OR Taylor & Taylor) list this supposed genus. I can find no evidence in the literature on its existence or any information about it. User:EncycloPetey 11 Oct 2005

EncycloPetey 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The reason you couldn't find this genus was because it was misspelled. The correct spelling is Bennettites. I renamed the article and closed the AfD. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please drop me a line. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinger Library Co-Operative[edit]

Non-notable group with 5 unique Google hits. Delete--Isotope23 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete, it's possible it's important but not likely.Harvestdancer 19:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Free Speech Movement gained control of a university facility. These people just set up a library in a disused room. Gazpacho 20:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for posting that. That was my point, I just didn't articulate it very well.--Isotope23 20:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I'd love to see more about this whole event, but I searched for it on the umich pages and other non-Google search engines and can only find a handful of articles on the takover and the current library. Would reconsider if more cites/info was available. Jessamyn 02:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I'd prefer this be merged into something larger that it is an example of. The article makes no specific reference to Free Speech Movement, and would belong there if it were a notable event in it's history.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox Stupid Losses 2005[edit]

This page was created by an anon ip. Unless there are third party references, it is inherently POV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: POV to the max, and who's going to look up an article with that title anyway? Also, a sole contribution from an IP. Saberwyn 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above & per nom.--PooterCobb 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sports-cruft. Only of interest to people who miss their friends' weddings so that they can watch Boston Red Sox games. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. POV, unencyclopedic, and why should only the Red Sox have a page like this? Nick Bush 22:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This article should be eliminated faster that the Red Sox in the ALDS. Youngamerican 23:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rhobite 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dont know alot about the Boston Red Sox, but i know this article is not fit for Wikipedia. Try a Sports fourm for a place to vent anger. - Bwfc 17:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (3d, 2k). Since all the delete votes cited it as a hoax, the confirmation by the original nominator should put to rest any controversy about keeping this article. --Scimitar parley 19:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buiteraptor[edit]

I gave this several hours and there is still nothing in the news nor any hits in Google. Suspect hoax CambridgeBayWeather 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's real, see one hit from Google only but there is about 258 hits on Google for Buitreraptor (with an extra R). This is the best. CambridgeBayWeather 08:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (unanimous).--Scimitar parley 19:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Glory[edit]

  • Delete nonsense--MONGO 03:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic--Mrmooky 14:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously not an article. Too bad there's no good way to speedy this. Friday (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I'm glad the author had such a nice time. CLW 22:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CEITEC[edit]

Vanity article - written by user "Cintia Ceitec". Tempshill 21:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable Brazilian technology centre. Article seems to be under development still but is factual. Counter systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 03:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep factual & notable enough. Dottore So 11:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could do with some work, linking, feels very press release boilerplate. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Would it be better to rename it Ceitec? Maybe a little vote on that! - Bwfc 18:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus Karmafist 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clark's Fork Camp[edit]

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting. --Woohookitty 10:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable camp. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)javascript:insertTags('--L1AM 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)',,);[reply]


Keep the information this article could provide is too much to be merged into any one article. 700,000 people have been to Philmont so while this camp may not be 'notable' or famous, the information the article could provide is valuable and worth retaining.--L1AM 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- but maybe move? Per L1AM & Solarusdude
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleolinda[edit]

Tagged as an A7 speedy, but isn't, and may have verifiability problems. -Splashtalk 23:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --MacRusgail 20:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete nn I think - but I note that Amazon does list the book referred to. Rd232 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club Korea[edit]

Flooding IRC channels is not notable.

Do not delete. This is a legit entry. (preceding unsigned comment by 72.20.220.123 (talk · contribs) 13 October 2005)

I concur, legit entry, no need to delete.(preceding unsigned comment by 68.180.43.77 (talk · contribs) 13 October 2005)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

College Libertarians of Towson[edit]

It's not notable. Not the kind of thing you put in an encyclopedia- a random student organization that doesn't even sound like it's making an impact on campus. 199.72.97.65 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)Delete[reply]

  • Delete: I hate to agree with Anons, but he's right. This sounds like badvertising through and through. Karmafist 02:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. An subsection in the Libertarian Party article about the college movement in general, and even providing links to some college clubs, would be fine, but this is pretty much not noteworthy at all. - Sensor 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student organizations that exist on a single campus are normally not encyclopedic. Note that the national College Libertarians could reasonably be the subject of an article, but no such article exists as of this writing. --Metropolitan90 06:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete smacks of vanity. Sorry, guys, I'm one of you too. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment er.. I should say that I share your political belief. I don't know you all from adam. ;) Roodog2k (Hello there!) 21:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 22:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable vanity and shameless self promotion Fsdfs 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passionate Keep This article, although small in scope, is quite factual and informative. Specific Organizations DO make it in this encyclopedia, and such entries are extremely resourceful. It is not trivial, it has a local impact. It is noteworthy, for if one is not impacted locally, such an article like this is necessary to learn about it. The vanity and propaganda claims can be addressed through revision. It is also historical and archival, as well as pertinent research material. --Malecasta 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would, however, agree that the Constitution in the article is a "source text," and it should probably be moved to wikisource. --Malecasta 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but this article is definitely NN. I mean, if the C.L. of T. had started the political career of America's first Libertarian president, that would be one thing. But this group is really really trivial. I don't mean to belittle its accomplishments, but it's a small club in a small college for a very small political party. Again, delete. - Sensor 05:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response I would agree you have a valid point. I think the charge, then, would be to show the impact and discussion about this organization, and I think substantial commentary, even if local, is enough to make the entry notable. If there is discussion and secondary work about this group, then that should be enough to reference it and make the topic available to people that would not be familiar with the topic. Instead of famous being the standard for noteworthy, this is my understanding of the criteria. So I guess it would be famous on a very small scale. This protects against arbitrary judgements of triviality and size. Keep, Revise --Malecasta 06:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice effort, Malecasta, but there is ample precedent that college groups are not retained around here unless they are exceptionally noteworthy. It is normally very easy for a single individual to found one and receive some local press coverage. Xoloz 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Works for me. If that is indeed the overwhelming standard, then no reason it should not go. Delete per Xoloz. --Malecasta 17:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To say that the CLT isn’t making an impact on campus is an unfair characterization. Perhaps the impact is relatively small, but it's definitely existent. We have several events lined up, and we will be planning more next semester. In fact, I just got through a planning meeting for the Marriage Equality event referenced on the article, which will be held on Valentine's Day next semester. We're reserving an entire field on campus for this event; we're scheduling speakers; we're creating a petition to legalise gay marriage in Maryland just for this event. One can hardly say there's no impact. As for the comments about the college being small, from what I’ve heard, this (i.e. Towson University) is the second largest college in Maryland. I believe University of Maryland is the only one larger. As for vanity, that's perhaps a fair claim, as I didn't bother creating any article for the other groups on campus. But this is because I know more about the CLT and its history than I know of the other groups. Allixpeeke 03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I totally agree with this, but it has been suggested that college organizations, by precedent, should not be published unless their impact is exceptionally noteworthy (see Xoloz). I personally disagree with this policy, if it does exist, and I see hundreds of reasons why it should be Kept and Revised. I am very weary of something being deleted because someone thinks it is insignifcant, and I've tried to give a correct interpretation of the Noteworthy policy above. I strongly believe if there is secondary discussion of any kind about the organization, no matter how small or local, it should be kept. This consensus, no matter how small, should ALWAYS override the arbritrary judgements of some, and even a majority, that the article is trivial and not important. Otherwise, a lot would not be in this encyclepida because of the prejudiced and provincial views of some (or most) people against many topics. The only consideration here that has been convincing to me is the Precedent of how the encyclopedia has handled these issues in the past. I think that's a fair standard to apply here, but I will modify this to say I do not believe the precedent is right and perhaps the precendent should be ignored because it is wrong and not in good spirit. I think people are concerned about vanity and advertising, and there is no reason that cannot be addressed through REVISION. I would hate to see this article go on account of "delete-hawking," deleting for the sake of the good of the encyclopedia on very simple grounds. This article, obviously, deserves a broader consideration. --Malecasta(talk) 03:57, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
      • Clarification Definately, the "upcoming events" section should go, go, go. I am not urging this page be kept for self-promotion. This should be a topic about this orgainization. This should not be the origanization's page. Surely they can get their own web space for that. --Malecasta(talk) 04:12, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Comment I removed all self-promotion references, and I removed the Constitution because it can be found in an external link. I believe the vanity issues have been addressed. The article, as it appears now, is a factual entry about the Organization, which should probably be expanded upon to further demonstrate the topic's significance. Finally, the initial reason for deletion was that the page was "not noteworthy." Not being noteworthy is not a major criteria for deletion, and a factual topic about anything, should be signifiant. This article should be expanded to further show its significance and secondary discussion. Of course, I refer to the previous comments I have already made about deletion for not being noteworthy. I believe a factual entry that shows an organization of relevance and significance exists here, and it can be developed. I think the concerns in the reason for deletion have been addressed or greatly mitigated.Keep, Revise, Expand --Malecasta(talk) 04:33, 2005 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • Delete - no amount of expansion will make this entity significant. WIKI is not the place for listing every college's individual organizations. Storm Rider 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even though Wikipedia:Importance is not an official policy, the Wikipedia:Importance page does offer some guidlelines for revision for this topic. The problem with Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Notability is that no one has a definite sense of what these terms really are, so depending on who you are, you're right, NO amount of revision can make anything significant or notable. Because of this, these criteria alone make the topic a weak candidate for deletion. --Malecasta 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Creek Camp[edit]

No source provided; no argument for notability provided either, the author created about 30 articles like this, except without any text in them at all. I speedied them all, as CSD A1. Unless some explanation of why this is notable or verifiable can be provided, Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Move: I've noticed these pages popping up too and I found out where they're comming from. These articles all talk about a particular campsite at Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. The reason why they are all popping up is that the Philmont article has a link created for each campsite. It seems to me that these articles are notable for anyone looking at the Philmont page, but are not very notable to Wikipedia as a whole. I proposed in the discussion page that these articles be moved into subpages under the main Philmont article (If you want to debate this issue, go to the discussion page). If that doesn't work, we could at least set up a Philont category and list all the campsites there. Solarusdude 22:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable in these articles, nor is it verified. The best solution would be to just un-link from Philmont Scout Ranch. Not every campsite needs an article. --Blackcap | talk 06:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba based espionage and destabilization operations[edit]

This is at least the fourth article on the same topic (History of Cuban espionage) that the creator has made this week. Two previous ones have been submitted to AfD's and I'm submitting this one as it is both redundant and given its unwieldy title not suitable for simply making into a redirect. Caerwine 03:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete duplicate. When you can't find your own previous articles that suggests that your titles aren't very good. Gazpacho 05:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Chiarelli[edit]

Self-promotion, non-notable. The fact that he's been spamming his website to lots of articles doesn't help either. --fvw* 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, but tone down the POV and self-promotion. "Youngest production designer in this country" (whichever country that might be; there are more than one) makes him notable-ish, if verifiable and "youngest" by a significant amount. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PacknCanes 02:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Hasn't contributed to Quantum String Theory or salamander metabolism Dlyons493 Talk 03:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-promo, self-important vanity page that, as usual with such articles, makes the subject look more ridiculous than anything else. Deleting this is doing Curt a favour. Dottore So 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out[edit]

wiki is not a dictionary

  • Delete this seems to be a well-intentioned first attempt at a page, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary or phrase book.Bwithh 19:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, but as Bwithh pointed out this does appear to be a good faith attempt at creating an article. Hopefully the author isn't discouraged and creates a user account to continue to contribute to wikipedia.--Isotope23 20:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Pureblade | Word 21:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Merge with Dave Coulier entry. This is his catchphrase (and would have been a lot better known ten years ago). Jtmichcock 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Merge with Dave Coulier entry. Rock on Jtmichcock...First the top-notch chart on the dog variations, and now this dead on vote. It should mention the aggrivating hand gestures made by cast members and the Full House Drinking Game Youngamerican 23:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Jtmichcock. PacknCanes 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 05:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  19:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberians[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense but patently isn't. AfD can decide it it is too crufty or not. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 23:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedaic Dlyons493 Talk 03:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense (unencyclopedic, not patent); no context given: is this fact? fiction? a real group? characters in a book or video game? MCB 06:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone's funnin' us. Denni☯ 08:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unintelligible. --MacRusgail 20:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Doc Glasgow. -Splashtalk 23:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dat Le[edit]

nn-bio with poor but debatable assertions of notability. I can't tell if this is for a gang member or an online gamer. Also see Marc Ecko (an alias) as part of this AfD; delete both — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both. Considered nn-bio and nonsense. Finally plumped for no context. --GraemeL (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per GraemeL.--Isotope23 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards keep (7 keep, 4 redirect). Robert 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Axim[edit]

  • Delete--Dell's products are non-notable and will not be significant 100 years from now Fsdfs 23:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Dell, Inc. -- products that are not origional or unique are not worth noting. Fsdfs 05:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Dell and protect against recreation.  BD2412 talk 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dell is a notable company and thier computers are notable. Samboy 00:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per  BD2412 talk. Dlyons493 Talk 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all of the models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a PDA which has captured 7% of the market not a PC. Besides a page listing all of the products on one page with the same level of detail would make it a very long page. Over two and a quarter million Google hits indicate that this is a notable product see [4]. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's products are notable.--Nicodemus75 04:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep(and two edit conflicts!). Merging all Dell products to a single page would produce the mother of all Wikipedia pages. Dell Branded PDA's are distinct enough from Dell's main line of business to merit their own article. There is also precedent for PDA models to have their "own" page, instead of having to appear on the page of their parent company, and we should strive for consistency. Palm Pilot has an article separate from the company Palm Inc., IPAQ is listed separately from Compaq or HP, CLIÉ is separate from parent Sony, Apple_Newton is not on the same page as Apple_Computer.--inksT 04:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dell product lines. We have a ton of articles about Apple product lines, what's the difference? Rhobite 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Axim product line. Merging all to the Dell, Inc. page would only make the Dell, Inc. article larger than necessary. — Vesther 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad-faith nomination with an agenda. This user is promoting Alienware brand computers (Alienware Area 51[5] and created Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion (this AfD and quite a number of others). -- Curps 19:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Dimension[edit]

Fixing accidental re-post of old AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell Dimension - the outcome there should still stand.  BD2412 talk 23:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. Notable computer product. Over two million results for Google search on Dell Dimension see [6]. Capitalistroadster 00:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Samboy 00:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all of the models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's products are notable.--Nicodemus75 04:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dell product lines. We have a ton of articles about Apple product lines, what's the difference? Rhobite 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Dell product lines are even more notable than random albums. Kappa 23:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for same reason as the other half-dozen Dell-related Afd pages. The company is large enough and its sales are high enough that many of its brands meet the threshold of notability. -- Curps 02:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Inspiron[edit]

Delete--Dell's products are non-notable and will not be significant 100 years from now Fsdfs 22:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Dell and protect against recreation.  BD2412 talk 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable IT product over 2 million returns for Dell Inspiron on Google see [7]Capitalistroadster 00:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major brand, is notable version Matthewvelie 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of it. Samboy 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per  BD2412 talk. Dlyons493 Talk 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all of the models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's products are notable.--Nicodemus75 04:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make sure that Inspiron 6000, and Inspiron 9300 are merged and redirected into this page. Product lines are fine, but subpages are overkill in my book. gren グレン 08:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dell product lines. We have a ton of articles about Apple product lines, what's the difference? Rhobite 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous nominations. CalJW 19:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad-faith nomination with an agenda. This user is promoting Alienware brand computers (Alienware Area 51[8] and created Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion (this AfD and quite a number of others). -- Curps 19:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 5 merge/redirect). Robert 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2[edit]

Delete--Dell's products are non-notable and will not be significant 100 years from now Fsdfs 22:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Dell and protect against recreation.  BD2412 talk 23:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as Notable brand of computer. How do we determine whether something is or is not notable within 100 years: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Dell corporation itself is notable for its success. Only problem is Dell has never produced anything that was unique (that hadn't already existed). If Dell's products are worthy then everyone else's (Alienware, Gateway, HP Compaq, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc) products in the same category are worthy of note because of precedent set if it is kept. Fsdfs 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Samboy 00:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per  BD2412 talk. Dlyons493 Talk 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all of the models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's products are notable.--Nicodemus75 04:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Dell XPS. I don't mind the basic product line but having every specific generation and model from that line is overkill. gren グレン 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dell product lines. We have a ton of articles about Apple product lines, what's the difference? Rhobite 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous nomination. CalJW 19:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere suitable. Pilatus 22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad-faith nomination with an agenda. This user is promoting Alienware brand computers (Alienware Area 51[9] and created Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion (this AfD and quite a number of others). -- Curps 19:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP (8 keep, 1 delete, 2 merge/redirect). Robert 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Latitude[edit]

Delete--Dell's products are non-notable and will not be significant 100 years from now Fsdfs 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Dell and protect against recreation.  BD2412 talk 23:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable model of computer. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major brand, is notable version Matthewvelie 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Samboy 00:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all o fthe models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's products are notable.--Nicodemus75 04:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dell product lines. We have a ton of articles about Apple product lines, what's the difference? Rhobite 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's product lines are notable, although specific products (ie. Dimension 8300) are not. There's way too much information to include this all in Dell. Carbonite | Talk 14:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter whether they will be relevant 100 years from now. They are now. CalJW 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad-faith nomination with an agenda. This user is promoting Alienware brand computers (Alienware Area 51[10] and created Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion (this AfD and quite a number of others). -- Curps 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards merge/redirect (see talk page for reasoning). Robert 00:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell OptiPlex[edit]

Dell's products are not unique enough to list every one of them, as they will be obsolete in 100 years and have no historical value. Delete Fsdfs 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Dell and protect against recreation.  BD2412 talk 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect --Rogerd 02:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per  BD2412 talk. Dlyons493 Talk 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all of the models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable computer product with approximately 1,250,000 results see [11]. Capitalistroadster 09:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dell CambridgeBayWeather 09:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and allow for organic growth. Kappa 23:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad-faith nomination with an agenda. This user is promoting Alienware brand computers (Alienware Area 51[12] and created Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion (this AfD and quite a number of others). -- Curps 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP (8 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge/redirect, discounting IP votes). Robert 00:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dell XPS[edit]

[*] Keep Dell's XPS is the ultimate gaming computer. I like to read about its updates and history. I think it deservers its own page rather than being crammed into the all-one Dell page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.228.85 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 14 October 2005

Keep -- Dell's finest line of gaming computers are the XPS. They are like PCs to Microsoft. Please keep this article up. It is helping a lot of people learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.155.206 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 October 2005

Delete--Dell's products are non-notable and will not be significant 100 years from now Fsdfs 23:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect all to Dell and protect against recreation.  BD2412 talk 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Over 395,000 results for Dell XPS see [13]. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we have now way of determining whether or not something will not be notable within 100 years. Capitalistroadster 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Samboy 00:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per  BD2412 talk. Dlyons493 Talk 03:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all to Dell. It's not that I think the model itself is non-notable; I just think it would make more sense to list all of the models together, in one place, for comparison's sake. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dell's products are notable.--Nicodemus75 04:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There would be overflow on the Dell, Inc. page. However I urge users to draw the line at Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2 and have that merged into this article and make sure that all of the sub articles listed on this page become a part of this page and not their own pages. gren グレン 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dell product lines. We have a ton of articles about Apple product lines, what's the difference? Rhobite 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough.Rhetoricalwater 18:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Alienware is notable then Dell most certainly is as well. Flakeloaf 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad-faith nomination with an agenda. This user is promoting Alienware brand computers (Alienware Area 51[14] and created Alienware Bot), even nominating Area 51 for a page move request, while simultaneously nominating various Dell brand pages for deletion (this AfD and quite a number of others). -- Curps 19:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didsbury Women's Circle[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax. If not then Non-notable Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete If hoax move to BJAODN otherwise move to Tewkesbury Women's Circle as a hoax, then delete that and move to BJAODN. Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strange, but their alleged webpage says "File not found because the user does not exist". In German. How odd. It does seem from the history that this article has been rattling around since February with various editors including 81.157.133.244 whose only other significant contributions appear to be improvements to the Liz Blackman article - a Labour MP. How odd, again. Delete as non-notable at least. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as some or all of above - odd! Dlyons493 Talk 03:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty sure it's a hoax (but one of the better ones, so a BJAODN candidate). --A bit iffy 10:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doodles Six[edit]

The article is a copy of the creator's User page, and appears to be a blog entry or summary of an adventure game session. Non-encyclopedic. Corvus 01:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Qaz (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make it a consensus, as per nom. --CastAStone 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless CLW 22:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete patent nonsense Fsdfs 23:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no idea what this is, but it certainly does not belong in the Wikipedia. ♠DanMS 19:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Econnected[edit]

I attempted a cleanup, but came to the conclusion that this was just an advertisment for a non-notable company.-- GraemeL (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ad. --fvw* 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. *drew 23:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Looks like an ad to me. --Gary2863 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom Fsdfs 23:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 02:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emporer Han Li[edit]

Joke; BJAODN maybe?--Shanel 03:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless author can show us his Half-Mexican birth certificate. --Zetawoof 03:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Funny Placing It Right now --JAranda | watz sup 04:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-extent emperor of a non-existent nation which existed when the dinosaurs were still around. Capitalistroadster 04:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. also, misspelled emperor.--PooterCobb 05:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- and why is this not a speedy delete? --Nlu 05:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. — JIP | Talk 11:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy+Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farrell Curry[edit]

Judging from a cursory web search, this article seems to be a non-notable autobiography. He looks like a nice guy but I am afraid it does not meet the notability requirement. --202.156.6.61 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and userfy to the author's user page. *drew 22:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per drew. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP Marskell 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foot-in-the-door technique[edit]

Original research, non-verifiable RoySmith 03:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on changes made, I (the nominator) change my vote to Keep. --RoySmith 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - the sales technique it's talking about is certainly real. It's not the best article it could be, but this is an amateur encyclopaedia after all. If someone wants to take a crack at cleaning them up, sources for usage of the term can easily be found with a Google for 'foot in the door "sales technique" ' or similar. I'll do it myself if no-one's done it by the time I get some free time (probably tomorrow evening). --Last Malthusian 14:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, keep. This is a valid sales technique. The article itself isn't in great shape, but that's what the cleanup tag is for. -- Captain Disdain 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the article. Comments welcome. --Last Malthusian 13:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article is much improved, but I still have my concerns. My initial reaction was, but this still sounds like Original Research to me, and I'd like to see some references, when I notice the link at the bottom of the page and followed it. I'm not sure how to react to the linked article, however. The first part of it is a very reasonable explanation of the technique, but near the end, it turns into a demonstration of the technique; the article is not really about a sales technique, it's a religious sermon, but the fact that it is indeed a sermon is hidden until the very end, by which time the reader is hooked on reading the article. I'd be much more inclined to vote to keep the wikipedia article if you could find some other external references to cite and ditch the sermon. --RoySmith 13:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one: [15]? It's pretty detailed, and directly addresses the issue in a way that the first reference didn't. Frankly, since it's been verified that the term exists, I agree that more and better references would be 'nice', but don't think they're essential to keep the article on WP. --Last Malthusian 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ashamed to say I only just read the article all the way through and saw the bit about Billy Graham. Guess that shows 2 things: a) FITD doesn't always work and b) I should read articles all the way through before referencing them. Good thing it wasn't about the miracle of Goatse :-) --Last "Foot-in-the-mouth" Malthusian 16:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it, I do think the original reference is rather cute and should stay in; the fact that it's a demonstration of the technique makes it quite an interesting external link, even if it shouldn't be the sole reference. --Last Malthusian 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You should add this new reference, and I still think the sermon citation should be removed, but in any case I agree that with the rewrite it should be kept. It might also make sense to move it to Foot in the door, or at least make that a redirect to here. --RoySmith 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And I've kept the sermon, but changed the text of the link to 'An example of foot in the door technique'. I know it's a bit dodgy, especially as the irony of an article about foot-in-the-doormanship being a 'foot-in-the-door' to talking about Jesus is apparently unintentional (look at the other articles on the website). But Wikipedia isn't a scholarly work, and I think we can have the odd idiosyncratic external link. --Last Malthusian 18:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable technique; I've seen listed in an advertising manual published 1948. Sadly, my chances of recovering the reference are close to zero. :( Xoloz 17:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep, but for God's sake get rid of the 'sermon' link per RoySmith. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as the creator of this article, I will say that my amateurish summary came from paraphrasing of my psychology text. I'm not really sure how exactly I could cite that, can we provide documentation without an external link? Also i came across to the article because it was linked from one of the psych articles, and I thought it was a shame that there was actually nothing there! So I decided to put in a stub just to get the ball rolling, which I guess it did. So can we reference a textbook? Lensovet 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fullpro[edit]

Advertisement. Delete. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbey Momerath and The Stranglers of The Heart[edit]

NN band starting to gain a following. Has appeared in various guises and with different personnel in the last few years. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I already deleted (or voted to delete) an article about Gilbey Momerath last month. If it's not notable then, it's not notable now either. — JIP | Talk 12:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this back? delete it again. Kappa 15:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Dottore So 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangle it now --Jacquelyn Marie 04:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global Mixed Movement[edit]

Not notable. No groups, No news. Delete. Happy to be shown evidence I'm right. brenneman(t)(c) 08:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - how global is it, if it's only concentrating on the western world? --MacRusgail 20:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Userfy+Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go Simon Sunatori[edit]

Seems like a self biography and vanity page of insufficient notability. The original author is User:GS.Sunatori, further updates by anon IP. Since so much work went into it, the content may perhaps be moved to the user page before deleting? Anyway: Delete -- Egil 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleTech[edit]

Dicdef, and not a very notable one at that. Peruvianllama 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a common problem that I have just coined a phrase for. We experience this in the computer industry daily - there just has been no operating word for it.

    This is a new phenomenon where google and other resources can give just enough info that a researcher who isn't versed in that industry can fall prey to a person who sounds authorative, but who really isn't. (preceding unsigned comment by 12.215.250.101 (talk · contribs) )

  • Delete I would like to point the author to Wikipedia is not for original research. If the word does not yet exist in common usage, we are not the place to start. Once the word is widely used, it can be added here. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this term has just been coined, it is a Neologism and not yet eligible for an article see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If the term becomes a common usage, we can consider the issue again. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that it's a problem, and not just in the computer industry, but Wikipedia isn't the place for phrases that you have just coined. Doctor Whom 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others pointed out already, Wikipedia is not for neologisms. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. This belongs on a site like Urban Dictionary [16]. Not here. - Sensor 03:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12.215.250.101, if you want to write about the phenomenon, then the place to do so is your own web site, or a journal such as Communications of the ACM. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of existing, accepted, knowledge. It is not a shortcut around the process of getting new ideas, new concepts, and new research published, peer reviewed, and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, especially those for which you are coining a new word to name them at the same time. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 15:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tobyk777 15:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster Pureblade | Word 16:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete improper use of trademark, neologism Fsdfs 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grint : A new word in the English language[edit]

per the title, a neologism of no encyclopedic merit. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not everyday you see an article justify itself for deletion in the title! Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A new vote from a Wikipedia editor. Jkelly
  • Delete neologism (obviously).--Isotope23 18:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that this is an attack page aimed by the author at someone they know with the surname Grint, whom they think to be somewhat miserly. As per the article's title, delete. Uncle G 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are proposals existing that would allow obvious ones like this one to be taken care of quickly. However, like this AFD page, those proposals are filling with signatures too slowly to take care of the problem. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guamania[edit]

Tagged as nonsense, but isn't patent nonsense. Sounds pretty well made up, though. Delete some amazing verification notforthcoming. -Splashtalk 01:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obvious hoax. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Word salad. -- Corvus 03:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN it. It's funny. - Sensor 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just Placed it on BJAODN too funny to pass up except the history part. --JAranda | watz sup 04:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of this discription fits Canada, including the old school Ontario flag, the population number, and the history. Very strange, however. Delete.--CastAStone 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Humor value isn't sufficient to keep this page around. --Nlu 05:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible; the author apparently gave up on his desire to parody Canada about halfway through the article. --Metropolitan90 06:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong vote: SPEEDY Delete. Obvious Hoax. And not even funny. --Tedzsee 06:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 21:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax CLW 22:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Optichan 19:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE nn-bio. -Doc (?) 23:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gundumani[edit]

Irrelevant article 203.99.42.15 08:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Tintin 09:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Saberwyn 11:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly vanity. — JIP | Talk 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is such obvious nonsense being sent through the five day AfD process instead of being speedied ? It is not good enough even to be called vanity. Tintin 22:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Halo[edit]

Non notable unfinished book for which I couldn't think of a proper speedy CambridgeBayWeather 10:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fancruft.--Isotope23 13:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Appears to be a form of vanity. — RJH 14:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly a personal project, non-notable, not encyclopedic.  BD2412 talk 22:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a published or even proposed GURPS project except in some nerds mind and now on Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat 22:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think you have Wikipedia mixed up with your unknown blog. Oh, how I wish it could be speedied. the wub "?!" 22:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//G.U. GameFAQs Boards[edit]

Non-notable and possibly advert. RadioActive 22:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Nick Bush 22:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, blatent promotion. Coolgamer 23:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft and advert. PacknCanes 02:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very speedy Delete more garbage Masterhatch 10:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is just silly. Trash it. Haon 03:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly ridiculous to have this sort of content on wikipedia. It is utterly uninteresting to the general public and throroughly unencyclopedic. Cool3 03:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is obviously a vanity page for the members of this forum. Nathan J. Yoder 14:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Jones[edit]

Doesn't sound terribly notable. Only claim to fame is presidency of a local university student association. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  03:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henchism[edit]

I think this is pretty deleteable. Non-notable joke vanity page. Delete Keithlard 19:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete* these kids sound like they really belive in this guy, shouldn't we respect that? you can try to delete us but we have it saved on word and can easily replace again and again and again. the war is on and you won't win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.40 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I speedied this once already (though I think it was a more nonsensical version). I'm willing to do it the long way this time. -R. fiend 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kewp (t) 12:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:NOR. Alphax τεχ 10:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Human Shit (band) and redirect Human Shit to Human feces. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Shit (band)[edit]

Looks like a high school band. Redirect to human feces after deletion. Nabla 22:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect as per Nabla. *drew 22:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect unless the origin of "shit" is explained in the article. other than that it is vulgar Fsdfs 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My old vote confused some people. straight up Delete -- not worth noting because there are thousands of bands who shared the same fate. There is nothing worth mentioning about this unheard of band unless there was something they did that make them stand out from the rest of the dead and still insignificant bands with similar histories. If you can make a compelling case for how they differ, I will change my vote.
  • Redirect per nom. "Shit" is a useful redirect as something someone might legitimately put in the search box instead of "feces/faeces" without going into its etymology (as for the origin of human shit, that's the human bottom, isn't it?) Tonywalton  | Talk 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 02:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Redirect seem reasonable Dlyons493 Talk 03:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure what good a redirect would do with the capitalized S. If anyone's going to look that phrase up, it would be in all lowercase, unless they did mean the non-notable band in question. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you're right. Nabla 20:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Come on people, this is totally not fair. I know of this band (having been into this typw of music when younger). They are totally legit. They were a music scene phenom in the mid-1990s among the LI Hardcore cult outside of New York City. Just becuase there is vulgarity in the title (which many bands have, I can refer you to many others) doesn't mean it should automatically be detected. What do you want them to do? Edit history and change the name of the band? I can't say that I agree with the presentation of the article (in terms of boosting the band), but hey, I've seen much worse on Wikipedia in terms of promoting the band rather than being objective. I will be looking for back-up cites, but in the meantime: Please Do Not Erase. I thought it was nice that something like this about long-dead local music appeared on Wikipedia... as it adds credence to the idea that the internet can be a source for finsing information about subjects that the mainstream media cannot deal with. Contact me if you have questions. James Kilgore, Long Island, New York [email protected]

(by 207.18.113.138 2005-10-14 14:26:28)

Keep and Categorize. I am the author of this page. Human Shit is the band's name. It was real band. They played between 1994 and 1995 just outside of New York City. Some say there will be a reunion. I don't know what more I can say. To those of you who know nothing about this subject (Mr. Kilgore below excluded from this category), don't make recommendations you cannot support intelligently!!! If it is non-importnant to you, it may be importnant to someone else. If it is considered vulgar by you, I would direct you to the entry for Fuck which is much more vulgar and intelligently classified on Wikipedia. Do not delete. It should be categorized under Heavy Metal, Music.

(by 207.18.113.138 2005-10-14 17:24:23)
    • Comment I have no problem with the band's name. I have no problem with it being an heavy metal band. I do not find the name agreessive (although that is propbably the band's intention and they'd be sad to read this...). Plus I like heavy metal and went to some very minor underground band's concerts, so I don't think the subject is non-important. The article's tone is no reason to delete but to cleanup. It was nominated for none of these reasons.
      The main issue is «only released one indie album». That is a little short for WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Show up something fitting one of those criteria, or even a little short of that (one good shot is telling for which label they recorded), and I'll be glad to change my nomination. Nabla 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Trying to act as if you are two different people does not help you at all. Nabla 20:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Nabla: Listen Mr. Smarty Pants. Yes, you figured that the two entry's above came from the same computer. Very good for you. As it turns out, one of my colleagues here at work (I'm a newspaper editor, not merely some online know-it-all critic) knows of the band from way back then. So, he wrote the entry from the same computer. Big Whoop-te-do. It is a part of local history. And (I feel the need to repeat), it is history. This is why my friend was gracious enough to include his name and e-mail address. I keep seeing these "delete" directives from people with profiles indicating they are from the mid-west and even Australia. Let me ask you: Who are you to determine what is history and what is not. I'll be looking for supporting links, but you know what, it's not too easy. I have a CD sitting at home that tells me the band is history, and that's all I need to feel vindicated. Thank you.

  • Delete and then redirect per nom. Xoloz 17:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Human Shit (re-dir) and Human Shit (band) (article) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Shit (band) (redundant). Then make a re-dir for human shit (lower case) to human feces. --rob 03:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'emThere will most likely only ever be one band that names themselves Human Shit! That I find encyclpodic...--Gaff talk 10:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a reason to delete the page, and I do see a reason to keep it: it contains information. Gronky 21:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where's the notability, the amg entry? fails the test. Pete.Hurd 05:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN band according to WP:Music. The fact that the band name is shocking is immaterial to me. - Sensor 02:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Know[edit]

nom&vote delete nn. PooterCobb 18:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete... Beetle is notable, his song however is not.--Isotope23 19:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 03:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge or keep, well-known song. Kappa 23:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 18:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as copyvio. Gamaliel 18:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interitus Dei[edit]

vanity and not notable. Gator1 14:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 14:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep insignificant and obscure, but seems to pass the bar for inclusion. Dottore So 11:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:Music. Kappa 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. DS 02:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isadore Twersky[edit]

  • Article does not explain why this rabbi is notable abakharev 01:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep After the rewrite the article is acceptable. abakharev 21:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 Article makes no attempt to assert notability, merely provides basic geneology (which might be okay for Michel Foucault, but not for wiki).--CastAStone 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete I'm impressed with the rewrite, but still unsure as to the notability of the man, he edited some books? I would be willing to change again if I misread the article or something... --CastAStone 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep, I completely rewrote the article, it is now an acceptable stub. Deletion at this stage would be nonsensical. Isadore Twersky is a notable talmudic scholar and harvard u professor. Please reconsider your vote for deletion. --Isolani 14:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notable, thanks Isolani. Kappa 15:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable. Uppland 16:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, endowed chair at Harvard and many publications. Chick Bowen 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable published theologian. Well done, Isolani for the rewrite.Capitalistroadster 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iwerne Holidays[edit]

not notable or encyclopedic, may just need to properly expand Gator1 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. It's not even a sentence let alone an article. Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This text was placed on the article page itself soI moved it here:Gator1 21:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have something to do with camps for christian school children I believe, as per original author, although I have no knowledge myself of what these are. 200.56.195.159

  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A1 Denni☯ 08:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, very short, no context. —Cryptic (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Muret[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense but definitely doesn't fit our description. No comment from me. -Splashtalk 23:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not nonsense, then a very trivial gimmick not encyclopedia worthy. Coolgamer 23:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep vote seems to be by either Jamie himself or one of his fans. The most of the user's contributions are to AfD discussions related to Jamie McGarry. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie McGarry[edit]

Delete, & redirect to No 4th Wall to Break, non-notable... I hesitate to do this, because I am actually a fan of this artist's work... however, as the article for this artist's comic Built for Comfort was deleted as non-notable, and as this artist's biography is available at Comixpedia, I find this article to be unnecessary. The best option is to delete and redirect to No 4th Wall to Break, I believe

NOMINATOR: (Sorry Jamie!): Tedzsee 06:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Tedzsee. -- Kjkolb 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Humph, here we go again! The thing is now, how do you decide whether a person is notable? A search for my name on google reveals that all but three of the first 20 entries are about me. Between the online games, the robot wars stuff, and three webcomics, one could argue that I was at least quite interesting. -- Hijamiefans
Comment. Indeed. Mind you a google search for "Lucas Teodoro da Silva" reveals three pages of hits about no one but me. The first 2 searches on "lucastds" hit sources about me, and a search for "tedzsee" gives 6 pages of google entries about me. The thing is: Rosa Parks is notable. Martin Luther King Jr. is notable. Lucas TdS? Probably no more than you. And I think, until such time as your comic appears in this encyclopedia, the biography probably doesn't warrant a space here either. Now, I was one of those who staunchly defended the notability of said comic, but even so, I was uncomfortable with the idea of the bio appearing here. The precident is that webcartoonists usually don't have bios in this encyclopedia. Even the entry for Nicholas Gurewitch simply redirects to his comic (ie. he doesn't warrant a seperate entry because it is his COMIC that is notable, not him). I dunno. That's why I thought a redirect would be more appropriate. You can always post the bio on your userpage, as most wikipedians do. --Tedzsee 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. One way for me to decide non-notability of people is to think: "I am non-notable. Am I more notable than this person?" Here, yes. A yes answer means farewell to the article. Xoloz 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also like Jamie's work, but I just can't see this meeting any reasonable encyclopedic standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A copy of this page is on Comixpedia and because it doesn't contain any other details about Jamie himself apart from his sites, which he can place on his user profile and not create a seprate article about it. For this, I hope that Jamie will forgive me. Mr Dave 22:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Trubecki[edit]

Delete Only assertion of notability is being a noble. However the person was born in 1938, and the titles of Polish nobility were officially abolished in 1921, so while he has noble ancestors he has never enjoyed any privledges from being a noble. Wikipedia is not a biographical dictionary and the present article is only a biographical dictionary entry. Caerwine 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Cronehed[edit]

Vanity article for non-notable author of The Grammar of the Hype (also nominated for deletion). The "books" listed seem to be dissertations to me... Delete CLW 22:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as nom Fsdfs 23:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and probable vanity. MCB 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 64 hits on Google, btw, most being related to the universiy or his thesis. // Fred-Chess 10:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanvas Grey[edit]

Delete. Yes, they have their own website. Yes, they appear notable within a small geographic area. But they do not appear to have released and physical recordings and, wrt WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 03:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN Paul 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaupelan[edit]

This is a non-notable Mironation.

  • Delete Non-notable Micronation. Samboy 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death to all micronations. Denni☯ 08:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khoi vo[edit]

Unverifiable. This user has contributed nonsense bordering on vandalism recently, and I doubt his credibility as well as that of the article. Google gets two hits for "Khoi Vo"+"Vietnam War", one of which gives this little factoid: "Tuan Anh Ho, leader of the Committee of Just Cause for Free Vietnam, was taken by an employee of his sign shop to Garden Grove Hospital, where he was treated and released. Ho was kicked in the stomach and groin about 9:20 a.m. as he stood outside his shop on Moran Street and snapped photos of protesters and their signs, said Westminster police Sgt. Darrick Vincent. Tho Ngoc Pham, 41, and Khoi Vo, 70, both of Westminster, were arrested on suspicion of assault and battery, Vincent said." Delete. Scimitar parley 15:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. -- Kjkolb 02:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 11:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King of Scarecrows[edit]

Unverifiable hoaxiness. No relevant Google hits on "King of Scarecrows" or "Theodore Mugswallop" (I gave up after that). Created by User:King of Scarecrows so could be userfied, I suppose. I vote BJAODN.Tonywalton  | Talk 21:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this should be moved to his userpage. Pureblade | Word 21:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:King of Scarecrows is currently a redirect to the mainspace article King of Scarecrows. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dethrone and Delete as hoax. Dottore So 11:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/nutbar, the sort of shtick the belongs on a userpage for someone who works on their user page more than wikipedia... Pete.Hurd 05:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy -- RHaworth 09:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Pokorny[edit]

Nom&vote delete. vanity, nn (although if Kyle Pokorny is that cool, maybe he is notable). Could probably speedy delete, but don't know how to do that yet...

Entire text reads: Kyle Pokorny refers to just about the coolest guy that you know. He is even cooler that Josh Fink. Daniel Lotspeich 03:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead easy - just put {{nn-bio}} into the top of the article. -- RHaworth 09:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Knight-Jadczyk[edit]

  • Delete per nom. This page is by the author of Cassiopean, also marked for deletion and similar in style and content to this page. It is pure vanity and nothing more. It would make an OK (but wordy) userpage, but doesn't belong as a Wikipedia entry. - Sensor 00:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Peruvianllama 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Allow userfication if requested but not fit for article space; sheer hagiography. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination.--Isotope23 13:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wow every article by this person is sheer junk. They don't stay on topic. They rambele on forever. Half the time you can't understand what she's talking about. She refers to herself. But most of all: I don't even think these articles are acurate. Most of her stuff is based on the opinions of lunatics and obsqure studies which haven't been proven. I propose that we go through, delete every article she's made, and ban her. Tobyk777 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have proposed two of her three articles on Wikipedia for deletion. See Cassiopean. Please, delete with prejudice. - Sensor 05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 21:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn crank Majts 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable vanity post with POV --Fsdfs 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. And let's keep an eye on the author. MCB 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in that vein, check out Cassiopaeans and 6th density. Tearlach 18:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Gaica[edit]

I think this article is a kind of self promotion or some joke. I´m really into bodyboarding since the 80´s and I´ve never heard about this lad. Also, he seems to be only 15 now. Nothing makes him worth of a page in Wikipedia, since he has NO encyclopaedic value. I think this article should be forever removed. By the way he spoke utter lies. He claimed to have invented the 720 air reverse, when José Otávio from Brazil had it caught on tape a lot before this Gaica claims. Also Jeff Hubbard have done it before. This guy also seems to be vandalizing the Boadyboarding page to promote himself. A search in google returns nothing for him either. Loudenvier 13:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. No verification, no sources, dubious claims. Barno 14:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anon 60.229.155.123 vandalized this AfD; I've reverted it to pre-vandalism state. Vandal changed content of earlier entries and inserted childish namecalling into signatures. This strengthens my vote to delete. Barno 15:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. How refreshing to see sensible sock puppets. -- RHaworth 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lesches, Seine-et-Marne[edit]

  • This article seems to be pure nonsense. 84.130.4.210 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not only seem to be nonsense, it is nonsense. The article should be deleted as soon as possible.82.83.61.109 16:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entire page history is edits from various IPs. Article has already been deleted twice. Also incomprehensible. Jkelly 16:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article was written by a couple of idiots who think it's funny... Tomorrow at the latest they'll lose their fun. 82.83.61.109 17:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • well i know that this article is just nonsense b/c i know the people who wrote it. It has to be deleted b/c wikipedia is a very very good encyclopedia, where stupid articles like this shouldnt be placed
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by me as a nn-bio.--Scimitar parley 19:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark lukeman[edit]

vanity RoySmith 19:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mconnect,Inc.[edit]

Delete. Blatant advertising, created by User:Mconnect. android79 20:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Says[edit]

Toy of minor popularity (Google lists only 34 pages containing "Mickey Says" and "Milton Bradley"). tregoweth 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Kudos for the rewrite. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midget wrestler[edit]

Dicdef, which is patently obvious. We don't need an entry to tell us a "midget wrestler" is a midget who is also a wrestler. ESkog | Talk 19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • and I'll start the bidding with delete. ESkog | Talk 19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten - good job! I assumed this was just nonsense from a sockpuppet, my mistake.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Sellers[edit]

Now, I could be terribly terribly wrong, and if I am, forgive me, but I think think is about a non-notable teacher with a non-notable drawing. A Google search for "Mr Sellers" was pretty good for nothing, as all relatively general Google searches are. This is the Google search for "'Priestnall School' Stockport Sellers." --Jacquelyn Marie 21:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a hoax-type dealy. Private Butcher 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity/hoax. The related artist Robert Etchells is tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete this one under A7 as well. There's nothing in there that asserts even a miniscule degree of notability of the person referred to, and the drawing is nn as well. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multivendor Integration Architecture[edit]

Very un-encyclopedic, little information. This either needs to be deleted or have a major overhaul by someone with more knowledge on the subject. Pureblade | ☎ 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think it also fits CSD A1, but I tend to have a liberal interpretation. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it doest exist however. Dottore So 11:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it exists doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedia article. - Pureblade | ☼ 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted as worthless garbage hoax. DS 02:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Wright[edit]

The idea of a Pacific Island unknown to atlases or google called "Natasha Wright" has set off by bullshitometer. Looks likely to be an abstruse and esoteric attempt at vanity. "Delete" unless evidence of a real island of this name is found. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Figs on the island grow on FOI trees (figments of imagination). Moriori 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax --Rogerd 05:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Roger abakharev 05:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable Eaglizard 12:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article, of a sort Mrmooky 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax CLW 22:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same as above Fsdfs 23:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neocron republic[edit]

nn gamecruft, few google hits for both "Neocron republic", "Neocronians" and "Galactic Ascension". Punkmorten 15:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NeoPoli10[edit]

bandvanity, no google hits

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 17:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendocore[edit]

Neologism, of the (random word)-core variety. No evidence of use that I could find; 209 unique hits (including usernames and non-English stuff) on Google, and the Wikipedia article comes up as the second hit. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, barely-used neologism. Proto t c 08:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gamewave. That's the term I've heard for this kind of music. flowersofnight 09:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect -- my google shows 519 hits, jeeves 800+, alta vista 1250+. 90% using the word in reference to music. Maybe a minor genre, but a genre it is. Eaglizard 13:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A Man In Black. -- Kjkolb 14:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legitimate classification, and distinct from Gamewave, which is an electronic, not a hardcore, subgenre. Page links to a number of entries for bands belonging to the subgenre. Irrelevant that Wikipedia article comes up high on the Google hit list: if this were grounds to remove an article, then we should also delete entries such as Jew, Liberia and Utilitarianism. -- Mrmooky 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator CDC (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the list of bands (minus the wikilinks on some of the less popular ones) and redirect to gamewave. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is a real music genre we should not erase it Yuckfoo 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you present any evidence of use of this term? I'm naturally suspicious of "something-core" genres, but I admit I don't know much about the subject. I just couldn't find any evidence of use of the term, and the bands listed don't describe themselves as "Nintendocore". - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism not found in the wild. Pete.Hurd 06:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outlast[edit]

Non-notable group, with no external references. -- Peruvianllama 09:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Their music is a conglomerate of many styles, mainly techno and avant-garde. The members of Outlast refer to their output as "Corporation".(preceding unsigned comment by 203.221.81.172 (talk · contribs) 13 October 2005)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted, hoax. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paduanisms[edit]

NN ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Padua College contributors
Welcome to Wikipedia! Please note that this deletion debate is designed to gauge the opinions of Wikipedia editors on whether or not Paduanisms belongs in Wikipedia per its policies. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Please do not vote keep because someone at your school told you to come here and do so.
  • Please keep my article on Paduanism till the end of the year. Its all legitimate info anyway, just very obscure. Please keep it till the end of the year! (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) who wrote the article)
  • Delete page of neologisms used by only a few. Joyous (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable to the point of being unverifiable. See Wikipedia:No original research. --Kwekubo 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have a sense of humour! Please keep in till November 20th! I promise to actively contribute to wikipedia after this is all over! PLEASE! Have a sense of humour! Dont u remember graduation!? (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) who wrote the article)
  • What the hell, keep it for a bit. Or move it to jokes.. I mean, I laughed... Coolgamer 23:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love thee coolgamer! (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) who wrote the article)
  • I remember graduation just fine, it was four months ago. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a free provider of webspace. If you want to put this up on the web, try a free webspace provider like Geocities or Angelfire - that's what I do. --Kwekubo 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its only temporary, and if i did that, it wouldnt be funny. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) who wrote the article)
  • delete per Joyous. --GraemeL (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the creator admits he created it in bad faith. (Also, please stop commenting on every vote. This isn't a dialogue.) — mendel ☎ 00:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah, you guys are boring. You're stuck in a stereotype - you don't have to be an intellectual and boring. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) {{{2}}})
  • Full Delete'. It's staffs unencyclopaedic. Think you've been jibbed. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not appropriate for the main webspace so it should be Deleted. However, if you were to register as a user, you could keep it on your user page. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You won't do it. You won't keep the article. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
    • No, I don't think we will. DES (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is imperitive that Wikipedia keeps this study of the venacular of that quaint little school, it is important to maintain the virtues of freespeech that were set out by our forefathers so many years ago. To delete this would be to insult their legacy. (Nicholas Wiggins, Founding Member of Wikipedia) (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
  • Keep Wether it is, to a large majority I'm sure, seemingly irrelevant and unverifiable we have to remember that this website has articles relating to eveything from abstract theories of information theory to videogame entries. If an article on Space invaders is relevant enough to warrant keeping then why does an article displaying some new conotations of english need to be deleted so quickly? (Ben Musgrove 10/14/2005) (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
  • Space Invaders is much more notable than this, though. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT! Considering the difficulty in fitting in at school it's important to be able to be part of the crowd and not be a POTA or a too far kid. Besides the logical reasons for keeping the page, it's also a momento for years to come from Padua and documents the ever growing encyclopedia of Paduanisms. To keep this page is to keep a record of a growing change in a culture in contempoary society. (Jarryd Wroe 10/14/2005) (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
  • Keep This is an important and humourous record of the ever-growing and changing examples of the English language. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
    • Actually, Amelioration is an example of the development of the English Language. And we are an encyclopedia, we are not supposed to be humourous. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Look folks, it's not going to be kept, so don't waste your time trying. I'm sorry that the joke is going to be spoiled, but wikipedia really can't afford to have a sense of humor about this kind of thing, or it would be overwhelmed. Kappa 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEEEEEEEEEP This page is an excellent example of the world accessing this website the way they are intended to. By implementing their own comical ideas about their school, they are expanding the horizons of the website into areas never imagined. If every school did the same as this one, the knowledge accessible would be endless. So in my mind KEEP IT (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
  • KEEP This site is of the chain guys (Jay Pickle) (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
  • Keep i think you should keep it, not only because it is informative, but because it has put a smile on my face, something that has never ever happened while i sit here every night and day reading new wikipedia entries and making boring comments about their inappropriateness because i have nothing better to do. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.182.64.1 (talk · contribs) )
  • Speedy Strong Delete Keeping this entry in wikipedia would be, like, the final sign of the End-Times Bwithh 02:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is junk --Rogerd 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, (if not speedy, since it barely falls outside CSD G2) and no BJAODN. Please, folks, don't even bother. It isn't that funny to begin with. Titoxd(?!?) 03:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nup. College cruft (even of my own college; see my edit history) makes me go AHHHHHHHH! --Jacquelyn Marie 04:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This a great example of how wikipedia can grow beyond the limitations of a regular encyclopedia. It is not a joke but a serious study of the behaviour of a community, and one that should be shared with all those who care to view it. (Paul Hewson, 10/14/05) (preceding unsigned comment by 220.245.180.130 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete--User:AYArktos | Talk 08:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a test to see how AFD can deal with outside invasion it seems. gren グレン 08:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does not pertain to a small group of people but rather a larger community. Why delete something just because you have never heard of it, or because it does not apply to you? To the people of Padua College this article means something and that is why it should not be deleted. (preceding unsigned comment by 60.231.125.165 (talk · contribs) )
  • keep It must have some bearing as many people who comment on the article are beginning to adopt the paduan patois. (preceding unsigned comment by Oddbergian (talk · contribs) )
  • Speedy delete and so tagged, as an admitted hoax, as per the talk page of the artilce in question, and a post on the help desk. Admitted or clearly established hoaxes are vandalism. DES (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all registered users. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, puppetfest and/or cuftfest. Xoloz 17:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parivision Entertainment[edit]

Nom & vote delete. Non-notable low-budget film company PooterCobb 17:26, 13 October 2005 (UT

  • It is the company resp[onsible for making the first 9/11 film They are also listed on IMDB as a production and distribution company. I would keep it listed— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.118.151 (talk • contribs) 19:07, October 13, 2005
  • Delete agreeing with nom. Too insignificant to warrant its own entry. Dottore So 11:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partha_Sarkar[edit]

Partha wants it to be deleted 129.186.192.28 22:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nn-bio, which it should have been tagged in the first place and now has been. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not an obvious speedy. 120 hits in google for 'Partha Sarkar' 'Wind engineering'. [17] is the homepafe Tintin 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - missed the point that the request for delete is from the author. Tintin 01:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as having no possible claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party at ryans[edit]

Unencyclopedic vanity. CDC (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable... though it gave me scary deja vu back to the D&D "parties" used to go to in middle school.--Isotope23 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Stranger[edit]

According to IMDB there is in fact a movie with this title planned. However, production has now apparently pushed back, so that shooting hasn't even started. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we have no way of knowing what changes will happen before this movie finally actually exists (assuming it does get made.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodbye stranger, it's been nice. You're off to delete paradise. Didn't want to keep you at all, 'cause Wiki is not a crystal ba-aall. Thank you, Supertramp. Lord Bob 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notably notable planning. Kappa 15:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly, you don't know how Hollywood works. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They don't call it "Development Hell" for nothing.--Isotope23 18:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball. I don't understand Kappa's argument. Dottore So 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Notable" is Kappa's all-purpose, one-size-fits-all adjective. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, giving Kappa the benefit of the doubt, it is possible sometimes for the planning for an event to meet the criteria of notability and verifiability even before an event occurs. However, anyone passingly familiar with Hollywood moviemaking realizes that those are plans so subject to change that they do not meet those criteria. By the time this movie gets made, if it ever actually gets made, it could easily have a different title, two different stars and be changed from a suspense thriller to a dark comedy. I would like to give Kappa the benefit of the doubt and think that he actually put some thought into this and just made a mistaken assumption, rather than that he put thought into "gee, what flimsy argument can I make to cover my reflexive vote of 'Keep'?" However, I've seen his record... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the personal attack. This film is on record as "announced" for both Halle Berry and Bruce Willis, so anyone interested in their careers would want to know want happened to it even if it was never made. Kappa 02:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
        • Even assuming -- for the sake of argument -- that Wikipedia should automatically be containing information on movies that were actually made with given stars and on movies that were announced but never made, what exactly is the objection to waiting until we know which it is? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be a waste of effort to recreate it, and wikipedia would contain no information about it until that time. Plus we might forget. Kappa 23:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I find that Kappa's penchant for inclusiveness often verges on the extreme, I find he usually musters an argument that should be taken seriously and is much more than just a cover for a knee-jerk keep vote. When I stated I don't understand what he means, I was being quite literal: viz, what is notably planning? Dottore So 11:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I second this sentiment. Kappa's dilligence and consistency is highly laudable, even though I often disagree with him. He's the true "advocate of the unloved article." If I knew how to make barnstars, I'd make a Clarence Darrow one, just for Kappa. Xoloz 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clumsy typing, halfway between "notable planning" and "notably in planning". 11:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only a crystal ball article, but a deeply uninformative one. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Not enough there worth keeping. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete existence in doubt; planning not verifiable. Xoloz 17:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I seriously doubt that we will "forget" to create a new article on a Bruce Willis/Halle Berry movie should it ever get made. More likely is that we will forget about this article if this movie remains unmade and thus have an inaccurate and useless article cluttering the encyclopedia. Gamaliel 18:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to the disambig page Perfect Strangers as a likely typo. If the movie ends up being made, we can always write an article then. Colin Kimbrell 07:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publixlounge[edit]

Spam, Promo for nn website Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raised from an Egg[edit]

This actually sounds like a fun project, but alas, a couple of guys having fun sitting on a mountaintop doth not an encyclopedia topic make. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC - no album releases, no allmusic.com entry, no web presence, just a local band like many, many others -- Ferkelparade π 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This band seem to me like a lot more than just 'another local band'. If read into the article you can see without the source being bigheaded he has managed to describe a rather pioneering group. I have seen them play at the Make poverty history gig. Thier achivemnt was impressive alongh with others and made it into their my local paper (I have the article but not permission to print it yet). Please, patience is a virtue and websites do take time to build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.125.144 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article details an upcoming band who may not yet be known to everyone, but as stated in the article, this band is in fact a musical "movement", and although they have not yet released any albums (which you seem to believe is the only thing that quantifies a "band"), one is in fact in production (as stated in the article), on a small record label. Disregarding music because it does not fulfil your 'criteria' would be a shameful attempt to classify art. For example, the Arctic Monkeys last weekend played a sold-out gig to 2,000 people at the Hammersmith Apollo, although they, too haven't released an album. How many bands do you know that:
a) Didn't start "local".
b) Are as radical as this band? This is not just another 'local band', this is a very unique way of expressing music, one which has not been seen in quite sometime. I personally, am a follower of this band (I began the article) and am very intruiged by their musical style and persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notch (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 October 2005
  • Keep. I don't know anything about this band but their entry is a hell of a lot more amusing and well designed than most of the 'proper' band entries on this site. Have we really become a bunch of boring busy-bodies with too much time our hands? Let it stay, and if they don't come up with some stuff in the next few months we can reconsider. It has always been my opinion that Wikipedia needs to lighten up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker (talk • contribs) 2:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Comment. More importantly, the criteria apply to generic music bands. This isn't really a band (as the article states under 'opposition'), thus the criteria for a band are invalid. This is a new innovative way of looking at music, not an "album, album, gig, gig, single, EP, album, gig" band.They are unique and therefore the article should stay. Notch 16:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, there's no way this user should become an admin. Whoops, was still on WP:RFA mode for a second there. Clear case of sockpuppet badvertising, and the inability to meet WP:MUSIC seals the deal. Strong Delete. Karmafist 07:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are a goon.(to all those who support delete) Stop harrassing this group of angelic individuals. I bet you spend all your time on wikipedia looking for articles to delete. I bet your real name is Gavin and your only friends are the cats you adopt when they happen to wander into your sqaulid bedsit, attracted by the stench of pot noodles. I bet the last girl you talked too was your mum who came around to drop of the clothes you got her to wash. I bet you can recite the entire script of neon genesis evangelon. I bet you're just jealous you didn't think of playing he guitar when you were young and free and still had hope that each new day would bring more than searching obsessively through the endless archives of wikipedia, folornley searching for something on which to exert what little power you have in life upon. I hope you get socks for Christmas. Good day to you sirs!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 October 2005
  • Comment Yeh and I bet you all play dungeons and dragons, and whenever you meet your friends you compare/boast about how BIG your memory is on your computer, and you always have stories about how last night you were kicking this orcs ass when suddenly you rolled a 2 and you were decapitated, and you fantasise about hot elf chicks with their HUGE SWORDS, tight, revealing, impracticle leather clothing and over sized breasts, but deep down you know that you won't ever get a girlfriend at all. And its really sad that you actually know the rules of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 October 17 2005
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, good luck with the album, return to WP when notability is established. Pete.Hurd 05:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For the "good luck", not the delete.

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

The result of the debate was A1 Speedy Delete (no context) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Swastika Society[edit]

Almost zero information, a Google search turned up only 1,230 results. Coolgamer 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain for now. It's the Buddhist equivalent of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, as I recall. There's a reference or two in Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (which I don't have to hand, so I'll look it up later). --Calton | Talk 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page talks about people mistaking the Red Swastika Society for a Red Cross affiliate. From this archived page (text is white on white -- view source if necessary) it seems to be the philanthropic branch of Tao-yuan. There's some discussion on Red crescent about the (non-)foundation of an International Red Swastika, with Crystal winning out instead. Anyhow, whatever this is, it's not that, so as the article stands now speedy delete per A1. — mendel ☎ 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - have heard of it... --MacRusgail 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - I haven't heard of it, but it looks interesting enough to be encyclopaedic. (Could the apparent lack of information be because it's mainly documented in Chinese languages?) --A bit iffy 09:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to exist in various forms; through google I find references to Taiwainese, Indian, and other versions. May be difficult to document, but as a sister of the RC/RC it seems inherently notable to me. Bikeable 17:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Beck[edit]

vanity and not notable Gator1 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Large segments of article copied verbatim from personal site at UWM: [18],[19]--Daniel Lotspeich 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
    • Stiking through prior vote and changing: Keep and cleanup. Published author. agree w Jkelly. --Daniel Lotspeich 01:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Bwithh 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Published author. Jkelly 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as copyvio. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Article was submitted by Robert J. Beck, drawing upon web page biography written and owned by Robert J. Beck. The author is willing to clean up text. Please Keep. 04:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.119.122 (talk • contribs) 21:40, October 14, 2005
    • Mr. Beck, I presume. Generally it is not Wikipedia policy to write articles about ourselves. While there are some contributors to Wikipedia who are notable, generally writing about onesself is discouraged. However, if you would like to join Wikipedia and create a username there, you are free to post as much information about yourself as you would care to.Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music 1971[edit]

This seems to be a spam claim for past royalties due Spenny 15:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete personal diatribe, POV, non-encyclopedic. It was extremely hard to read... anyone know whom the author is claiming ripped off the dead guy? Just curious.--Isotope23 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that moaning essay. -Hapsiainen 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and gets its author a Prozac. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. the wub "?!" 22:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete is a bad opinionated article. Mystcat
    • This is the user's second edit, unless he has edited as unregistered, too. -Hapsiainen 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy DELETE. nn-bio -Doc (?) 23:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RubyMowz[edit]

Non-notable forum member. Only 7 unique Google hits, one of which is a Wikipedia category. [20] Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwich guide[edit]

Non-notable website, Wikipedia is not a webguide. A single page links to this site according to google, and that happens to be this wikipedia article. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    Note, above vote by author of article being considered for deletion.
  • Delete vanity, sandwich shops on one street non-notable. Pureblade | Word 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the Webmaster of this site and I apologise for this entry. It was done by an enthusiastic user without my knowledge, so please delete it as soon as possible as it isn’t suitable. Many thanks.
  • Well, thanks for your sensiblenss. I will help the process along. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite a nice site, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. the wub "?!" 22:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru vs Shadow the Hedgehog[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Useless "battle" between two unrelated characters. RattleMan 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sidn[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable and vanity vulgarity/slang. It claims that the slang has "spread across the island". However, no source is provided. --*drew 12:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete : perfectly alright. nothing wrong with it. don't see why it has to be deleted. Innovation rules this modern world now and this creation should be gladly accepted instead of getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs)
    • Not Delete : KEEP THIS HERE WIKI!!! we need more innovative minds in this world and if you delete this, you're gonna destroy innovative minds! In fact, many schools use it, and yeah, its common among teens in certain places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) (same contributor as previous vote)
      • Okay I changed my mind. We can have this on our own homepages. Delete. - 202.156.6.59 20:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by the same class as the 2L_2005 article. Those guys keep messing up AfD's, too. --JoanneB 13:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete It is a perfectly fine word, and it is used commonly as a slang. Wikipedia requires us to post anything, any little bit of info in the world, and here we are doing a SERVICE for you guys and yet you are complaining. I have heard my children using it in front of me, and it seems to be a pretty useful word. - Bob Koh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, WP:DOESNOT require you to "post anything", this is not an indiscriminant collection of (useless) information. Also, innovative minds are not at risk. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. (Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, wouldn't take this word because it isn't an attested word.) The anonymous contributors above also, quite ironically, demonstrate that this article violates our Wikipedia:no original research policy as well. Just as with Caughtem (AfD discussion) and Gotem(speech) (AfD discussion) a group of schoolchildren has aimed their invented word at the dictionary and missed, hitting the encyclopaedia instead. Claims that the word is in widespread use are not supported by any evidence, and would only have bearing upon the admission of the word to the dictionary, not to the encyclopaedia, in any case. Delete. Uncle G 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not intended to be a plaything of pesky schoolkids. Bwithh 02:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more cruft from the Raffles Institution. MCB 05:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, not NPOV, not notable, and getting really close to spam from Raffles' students! bjelleklang 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Well, I laughed at the foreign language section, preserve that in BJAODN; delete the rest. (Bloody bourgeois these Raffles Institution students can be). -- Natalinasmpf 14:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeble[edit]

I don't believe the animal exists. Unless someone can prove its existence, I nominate for deletion. Geopgeop 12:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait... you've never been attacked by a Skeeble having a nicotine fit? Delete as nonsense.--Isotope23 13:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke entry--Mrmooky 14:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense Pete.Hurd 06:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/redirect to Toki Pona. -R. fiend 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Elen Kisa[edit]

The last deletion attempt on this article, which can be seen here, had either a 6 out of 13 or 7 out of 14 count for Keep by my account, depending on Ambi's vote, which I assumed to be a delete by defacto. Regardless of Ambi's intentions, this should have been closed as Keep, No Consensus rather than as a Keep, and the ensuing confusion in the conversation has led me to believe that another look at this is needed. Currently No Vote from me. Karmafist 02:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jan's comments below, I'm changing my vote to Merge or Redirect with Toki Pona, she's not notable on her own.
Ultimately, I believed that gaining a clear consensus after the last AfD was the largest issue here, but since that attempt was apparently percieved as a ploy in the continuing Deletionist/Inclusionist nonsense, apparently my original goal is being ignored. Therefore, I've decided to discard that goal and go with my opinion on the article itself rather than the AfD. Karmafist 05:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid misunderstandings, there's one thing I want to make crystal clear: I am not accusing you of any kind of ploys or deletionist nonsense. In fact, it's obvious to me that your intentions are honourable. My earlier remark concerned repeated AFDs against one article in general (an example that still gives me a bitter taste in my mouth is the case of Fyksland, which first survived two VFDs, then it was decided to merge and redirect Fyksian into it, and then it was killed in a third VFD after all). --IJzeren Jan 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Jan. I'm going to keep my vote, but i'm glad there's no hard feelings. Karmafist 16:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my opinion, an renewed AfD is way over the top if the only purpose is having the conclusion of a previous one reformulated, especially given the fact that the final result would be the same anyway. In your place, I would rather have contacted the administrator in question. --IJzeren Jan 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then we agree to disagree, Jan. I reopened this vote largely because of the ambiguity that was caused by the admin who opened and closed this last time, Ambi. If I asked Ambi, that wouldn't help the other people(the reason how I found out about this article) that were somewhat perplexed at how the last AfD was closed, and she would have to repeat that task several times. That was probably a minor mistake since Ambi has a reputation as a great Wikipedian, so this is just to make sure what consensus is and to absolve her of any future problems from those ambiguities. Karmafist 15:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. If someone can show that the language created (Toki Pona) has made a few waves than its creator merits ancillary inclusion; disinterested secondary sources rather than blog entries count in this regard. For the moment I don't see anything. Marskell 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The notability of Toki Pona is beyond doubt. But does its creator therefore merit an article on her own by definition? Not necessarily, if you ask me. The "notability by proxy" mechanism could work if: a) the article about Toki Pona would get too long, or b) Kisa would be notable for other things as well. Now, I don't think any of those two is the case. Besides, the article in question doesn't add much to the phrase used in Toki Pona (created by the "Canadian translator and linguist Sonja Elen Kisa") anyway. Normally, I would therefore have voted "merge". But the article has already survived an earlier VfD, and I don't think it would be a good idea to constantly re-AfD articles until the deletionists get their way. So "keep". --IJzeren Jan 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the creator of a notable conlang seems notable. — JIP | Talk 11:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can provide me evidence that her created language is in use. Right now I don't see any indication that this language is used outside a small group of people on the web. That to me indicated a non-notable language and therefore a non-notable creator.--Isotope23 13:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep or merge with Toki Pona and redirect. -- Mrmooky 14:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, creator of Toki Pona. Kappa 15:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect until she's notable for more than Toki Pona. DenisMoskowitz 15:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Toki Pona] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Wikipedian.  Grue  19:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per SPUI, (note that merge and redirect are distinct I believe). Dottore So 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I'd like to see this article deleted since it has less notability than Tim Shell, in my opinion, but I also think it should be kept, in some way. I'm on the fence. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 17:47, 13 October 2005 (CDT)
  • Redirect to Toki Pona. No need for merge, since information is already duplicated there. Chick Bowen 22:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, verifiable but not a lot of content. Keeping is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 02:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-14 T 07:22:01 Z
  • Keep as per JIP and others. Hall Monitor 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The conlang does not seem to be notable -- at least its Wikipedia entry does not say how it is. Martg76 07:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, Toki Pona ís notable, don't worry about that! See f.ex. this VfD. If the article doesn't make that sufficiently clear, that's a manco of the article, not of the language. Besides, this poll is not about Toki Pona, but about Ms. Kisa. --IJzeren Jan 08:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Toki Pona - a sweet language, but noone uses it, and you can't say anything interesting about her other than her founding the language. -DDerby-(talk) 20:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Stargate Wars[edit]

Non-notable fan-made (unauthorized/unlicensed) online game. It's one of many more-or-less interchangable "Build an army by paying us money or recruiting other players" online games, and doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any sort of news coverage or other impact. Google backs this up, with 133 unique links, many of which are people spamming to try to recruit other players. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable game.--Isotope23 18:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is unauthorized but, I my self have been getting help on improving it and a number of new players said that they saw the page and they liked it because it was actually more helpful than the actual site. If it is deleted now, before it can even get a chance to gain some traffic, some will be mad, and others will be disappointed until someone trys to make it again. Please just give the page a little bit longer.

    • Which not only makes this non-notablem unauthorised and fancruft. I'm pretty sure that an article designed partially as a walkthough and partialy as a recruiting advertisment has no place in an encyclopaedia. Delete Saberwyn 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 11:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable game. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly defines a game as non-notable? Whether authorized or not, the game has attracted almost 40 thousand users since it was put online 8 months ago, more than 16 thousand of which are still active in the game and/or the forums. The administrator of the game has constantly made updates to the game to please users, as well as improve gameplay. The administrator is currently developing the 4th version of the game, giving all users a gaming experience that they can look forward to on a daily basis. To call the game non-notable is arrogant and pompous, and the current article does a great job of defining the game's brief but storied history, as well as giving new users an idea of what they need to do to excel in the game.

  • Almost 40,000 usernames, in a game where gaming the system to make false usernames for the referral bonus is rewarded? That's less than you'd think. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cheaters who create double accounts are found and baned by Admin and Mods of StargateWars, many cheat fixes are implimented to prevent multi accounting. 40k players NOT 40k usernames. More players are joining every day and unactive accounts are deleted. Stargatewars is most popular Stargate game on all the web.

First of all, the game does give limited referral bonuses, but as it seems you haven't done more than give it a cursory glance you don't seem to realise that these bonuses are essentially useless for anyone trying to do even marginally well at the game. Link clicks from the referral links are limited to 50 per day, which in the grand scheme of things would count for about 1% of the growth a player can realise in a day through actual gameplay (i.e. nobody bothers with the link clicks anymore). Furthermore while there are bonuses for supporting the game people can play (and be quite successful at it) without paying a cent. In fact some top players have received supporter bonuses FOR FREE from the admin for their excellent gameplay. A few players known for their excessive donations have been singled out and targeted as the practice of donating to achieve rank is strongly frowned on. The game appears to be initially based on Kings of Chaos (which has it's own wiki) and expanded the concept to create a far richer more engrossing gaming experience. So it's non-notable why? Because there are no media articles on it? Much that is noteworthy fails to appear in the media and even more that is not noteworthy appears in the media with all too much frequency. Perhaps to you it's not, but to the stargate fans out there this game is noteworthy and considering that it is the longest running sci fi show in US history and second only to Doctor Who all time globally, I think that it's a testament to how Stargate has entered into various different facets of culture outside of television.--Freeside 07:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a blatant clone of another game, not very popular as free online games goes, has gotten absolutely no press coverage despite an entire industry devoted to covering games, hasn't even been around very long, and isn't even terribly significant in the context of the Stargate fandom. (I'm not disagreeing that Stargate is notable; but, then again, we're not talking about deleting the Stargate SG-1 article.) When this game is as popular and influential as Kings of Chaos, it will merit its own article, but until then it doesn't. Sorry. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm pretty sure that an article designed partially as a walkthough and partialy as a recruiting advertisment has no place in an encyclopaedia. Delete Saberwyn 07:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)". Two things: 1: This article does not contain any recruitment links AT ALL! Have you even bloody read the article?!

2: Has anyone actually read 'What wikipedia is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)? I quote: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports" - thus, why does an article need to be about media? I quote again, from the same source: "Subjects [people] of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." However: no where in that OFFICIAL article by the wikipedia admin does it say that non-human subjects need to be 'notable'. So there! Keep or put yourself at the mercy of all Stargate nerds And I am just about to add an external link to my own walkthrough guide; this article will act as a brief summary of the game, but not a walkthrough (whoever suggested it was). ZPMMaker 08:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you threating Wikipedia in your vote? How absolutely silly.
    As for claims of notability, as a matter of practice all things need to assert notability, unless (and this a very controversial exception) that thing is an inherently notable thing (and online web-based games aren't even close). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not a threat (what made you think it was?). Also, it does not say that it needs to be notable. If you know where it says it must, please point it out to us.ZPMMaker 11:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon. (And this is coming from a Stargate nerd.) slab 13:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can gather there are two main points supporting deletion. First that the game is unlicensed, hence not fully legal, and second that the game's popularity is deemed too limited to warrant inclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now the first point is actually irrelevant. Something being authorized/sanctioned is not a pre requisite for relevance. I think you would agree after a moment of thought that unsanctioned/unauthorized work can often be equally or more relevant. So saying "Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon" is essentially moot. As for the second point, if using Kings of Chaos (KoC) as a metric, a comparison between the two shows that KoC has about 10 000 users online at this moment compared to about 500 for Stargate Wars (SGW). Now this indicates that SGW has about 5% of the usage that KoC has. This is notable. KoC has been around for almost 5 years whereas SGW has been around for a matter of months. In any other arena, say for example web browsers, Firefox developping a user base that was about 5-10% the size of IE was certainly considered notable. --Freeside 19:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial, unlicensed, and non-canon is subject to "foxing". Don't laugh-- MGM has already gone after others for similar. SGW is also charging money for support, which could be construed as the use of MGM's copyrighted material in order to turn a profit. You know, something which MGM's legal department wouldn't take too kindly to. A cease-and-desist means that the game would likely no longer exist, making the need for an article on a short-lived web-game "essentially moot." Hence, my objection.
Back to the current article, though: Your argument seems to basically be 'there isn't a huge userbase yet... but there might be someday! And then we'll be glad we had this article!' By that math, I could write up a web-game and have it online for five minutes... sure, it might have one user now, but if it lasts for five years like KoC, then there'll be 525 600 users! (I'd better get started with that article.)
As far as the Firefox analogy goes, it's apples-to-oranges. In the web-browser arena, IE has something like 90% marketshare; thus 5-10% is notable, as that makes it the second most popular browser. Stargate Wars is one in how many different web-games (each with how much share of the market)? slab 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares how notable it is?! Like I said before, no where in the official wikipedia rules site does it say a subject need be notable!!! ZPMMaker 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-encylopedic, non-notable. Pete.Hurd 05:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What exactly defines an encyclopaedia? According to Encyclopedia, it is a 'Compendium of knowledge'; this article provides knowledge about a game, and thus, is encyclopaedic. It also need not be notable, as I have said before (see my second post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Archangels_Of_Destruction)... Pete.Hurd, I believe your claims are invalid (not to mention the claims of everyone who claimed it was not-notable)...ZPMMaker 08:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just because its author said we "would not be able" to delete it. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JIP, that's not a real reason! ZPMMaker 07:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, in that case, delete because it's a non-notable online game. — JIP | Talk 07:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Move to Suicide Blonde. Physchim62 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide blonde[edit]

Neologism. WP:NOT Urban Dictionary. Paul 23:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wiktionary - I've heard the term too, but with a different meaning. Coolgamer 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologism? I remember figuring out the "dyed by her own hand" pun in the mid-80s and the INXS tune is fifteen years old. Still, Wiktionary. — mendel ☎ 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion on whether or not individual songs should have articles. — mendel ☎ 14:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly a neologism; it's been around for years, more likely decades, as a pun on the "different meaning" (presumably that'd be 'blonde who drives da guys to suicide'). This is a dicdef . Transwiki to Wiktionary. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This usage was in the INXS hit single which was their last top 10 hit in Australia see [21]. From Allmusic.com, I note that the song was a top 10 in the US as well. I would vote to keep if article is expounded to primarily discuss the INXS hit song. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have written an article about the INXS song. Capitalistroadster 10:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Article should be renamed as Suicide Blonde.Capitalistroadster 10:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been rewritten into a piece about a notable song. 23skidoo 13:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With new content, rename "Suicide Blonde" and keep. (Points for being bold, Capitalistroadster!) Paul 14:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent work, Capitalistroadster! Coolgamer 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SWF 'n Slide Pro[edit]

Subject is too unimportant to get a wikipedia article, plus article looks like advertising. Delete. Peter S. 12:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability - not all software is encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Pete.Hurd 06:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default to keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Hal Lindsey wrote a lot of silly books that exploit paranoia about the apocalypse. Why should this one get its own entry? The only notable one of his was published 35 years ago and that one was trash too. We already have entries for that and for the author, there is no reason to list this book. csloat 07:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No need for a redirect.--Irishpunktom\talk 09:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Entry for author is enough, we don't need every non-notable piece of written work ever made to have an entry.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 10:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article seems to be NPoV and it has some genuine information regarding it's subject. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to get you to change your vote, but you do realize this was listed because it is non-notable, not because of any POV issues, right? csloat 22:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the concern is not PoV, the concern is notability and finding dozens of entries on a search site does not mean it is notable. a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Karl Meier. My 1000th edit!! :) Borisblue 20:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Yahoo [22] search finds dozens of entries on this book and Amazon has it available too, so it's clearly notable PMLF 23:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hal Lindsey book, anyways notablity is not criteria for deletion. Klonimus 00:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote disregarded by closing admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Anonymous editor.--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable book and seems to be NPOV. Carioca 01:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not terribly notable and the article doesn't give much information. Should be mentioned on author's page instead. -- Kjkolb 02:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally think Hal Lindsey is lunatic-fringe material, but his sales figures and media attention bespeak notability. MCB 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because Amazon carries it does not make it notable, and in fact, the Amazon sales rank is a rather dismal 149,187. However, it has been reviewed by a rather amazing 34 readers, which indicates it arouses considerable passion in those who do read it. Denni☯ 08:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep and congratulations borisblue on your 1000 edits that is really great Yuckfoo 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a joke article which is vandalism per WP:VAND and a speedy per G3. -Splashtalk 22:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The final theory[edit]

hoax

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Grammar of the Hype[edit]

Someone's dissertation. Not notable. Vanity - partly written in first person. Delete CLW 22:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable book promotion Fsdfs 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, plus fails to meet criterion of being at least minimally comprehensible. Hopefully the dissertation itself reads less like a Babelfish translation. Do not redirect to Hype. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. (Third sentence "My thesis...") MCB 06:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete // Fred-Chess 10:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wait and The Wait[edit]

Articles' content (they're the same) doesn't seem to have any merit. Searching on Google finds no relevant hits. Kmart doesn't seem to sell any such shirt as the article claims. —Cleared as filed. 00:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity; links to vanity page being speedied. Eaglizard 12:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I'd support a keep of The Wait if anyone could remember what Killing Joke album The Wait appeared on and replace this drek with an article about the song and the fact that Metallica covered it on Garage Days Re-Revisited.--Isotope23 13:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 21:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-academic, inside joke, vanity. Fsdfs 23:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete --Celestianpower hablamé 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shell[edit]

Ok, I happen to have a lot of respect for Tim, being a board member and such. And I don't believe much in the notability thing. But, Tim doesn't seem notable to me. His assertions to notability are being the Bomis CEO and being a Wikimedia board member. We should not make special exceptions for people who work with Wikimedia, this is bad. It seems like a huge self-reference to me. And, it uses information from the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I feel this is original research because it's written by Wikimedia. I hope to soon become as notable as Tim Shell, and I would make a self-nomination for VFD if an article was written about me at the same level of notability. --Phroziac(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just as notable as Sonja Elen Kisa. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 21:05, 12 October 2005 (CDT)
    • Humorous comment - ...which is also on AFD... --Phroziac(talk) 05:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CEOs are notable, and board members of the 45th most popular web site further increases notability. Unfocused 07:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... the Sonja Elen Kisa argument isn't very compelling. Regardless. I don't think every CEO is notable; there needs to be auxillary reasons for notability (notable company, media coverage, etc.) Bomis fall just short of notability IMO, so I don't really see Mr. Shell as notable as a CEO. Board Membership does not confer notability in and of itself. I wonder if we would even be havign this discussion if Mr. Shell had no involvment in Wikipeida and was just a CEO of some random dotcom with a board membership on some other random project...--Isotope23 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My own opinion regarding the value of this article has nothing to do with Bomis or Wikipedia. Any CEO and/or Board member of similar sized organizations should have an article. Tim Shell's relationship with Bomis and Wikipedia means he has an article sooner than other similar people. Please don't make comments that don't assume good faith on the part of people whose opinion is opposite your own. Unfocused 15:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to concur with unfocused. --Phroziac(talk) 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My musing on whether or not we would be having this discussion if Mr. Shell was not involved in wikipedia was not an assumption of bad faith on your part Unfocused and I'm sorry if you took it that way... it was just a comment and it wasn't directed at you. I simply don't agree with your contention that every CEO of a mid-sized company is notable. In my opinion that is extremely low bar to set for notability. That's just my 2 cents and you are certainly entitled to disagree with me. On another note, I would support a merge of this information into the existing Bomis article as has been suggested here by others.--Isotope23 18:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just so you know, I hadn't intended to "get in your face" over this, but only to point out that your sentence beginning with "I wonder if we would even..." seems to presume improper bias on the part of the article author and all subsequent "keep" voters. It really was a very minor point, perhaps I should have put it in small text. Unfocused 20:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No offence taken. Sometimes my writing comes off more abrasive than it was intended.  :)--Isotope23 20:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest keep ever. Bomis doesn't fit my "deserves an article on every CEO ever" criteria, and Wikipedia, in terms of the prominence of it, doesn't deserve an article on every board member ever in my eyes. And yet, we are Wikipedia. Obviously. And, honestly, I'm voting to keep because Mr. Shell is so notable in a Wikipedia context that it will help the project to have an article on him around. Did that make a lick of sense? Lord Bob 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this is kept, I want to see articles on Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, Michael Davis, Florence Nibart-Devouard, et al. Rob Church Talk | FAD 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow...a quick preview shows we do have Mike and Anthere. Rob Church Talk | FAD 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Bomis] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best guide to notability, be it of people, companies, software, products, or web sites, is whether other people, independent of the subject itself, have considered the subject to be notable. The litmus test for that, outlined to greater or lesser extent in all of our various notability criteria (WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and so forth) is whether the subject has been written about in multiple separate published works that whose sources are independent of the subject xyrself. (WP:BIO talks about press coverage and independent biographies. WP:WEB talks about media attention. WP:CORP uses the broad term of published works, and is explicit about excluding self-promotion.)

    Furthermore, as Geogre says, it is a disservice to AFD and to the encyclopaedia as a whole to apply criteria erratically and inconsistently. It is wrong to hold the Wikimedia Foundation, its board members, and its web sites to standards that are different to the standards to which one holds other companies, people, and web sites.

    Researching this person, I have yet to find anything published about him by someone independent of Bomis or the Wikimedia Foundation that isn't a straight one-sentence mention, as an aside, that parrots Wikimedia:Board of Trustees, Bomis (from the version before Jimbo Wales removed mention of Tim Shell from that article), or Wikimedia. See the one-sentence mention of Tim Shell in this article in Florida Trend for example.

    Additionally, Lord Bob's argument is wrong. Claiming that someone is notable within the group of users of a web site does not wash for Wikimedia board members and Wikmedia project editors any more than it washes when people assert that their BBS sysop is notable within the users of their BBS, or that a web discussion forum participant is notable within that discussion forum, even though unremarked upon elsewhere. Other people, independent of the subject, have to regard the subject as notable, and have to demonstrate the extent to which they find the subject notable by creating and publishing works of their own about it.

    As such, this person does not satisfy the criteria for notability. Delete. Uncle G 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't asserting that he was notable because he's notable within Wikipedia, I was asserting that, for the sake of smooth operation of Wikipedia as a website, it would be valuable to have articles on the board members. It's not that he's notable as such, it's that he's notable enough within Wikipedia that Wikipedians would have an easier time of it knowing who he is. Not that this article is that great, but it might get expanded. As you might have guessed from the weakness of my keep, I'm not entirely sold on this argument but it's stuck in my head and I cannot ignore it. Lord Bob 18:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The place for the Wikimedia Foundation to publish articles on its board members is the foundation's own wiki. And that's where it does publish them. See the hyperlink given above. As for the possibility that this article could get expanded: the immediate question is "expanded from what source?". As I pointed out above, the only source of information on this person that provides anything more than a sentence of information is the Wikimedia Foundation, and the article already contains everything available from that source. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Xoloz pretty well summed up what I'da said in reply to this below. Lord Bob 16:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Xoloz is applying a double standard on the false grounds that Wikipedia needs to be the primary source in this particular case in order to provide administrative transparency, and doesn't answer the question that I asked above. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care. Or maybe that would be Neutral. Slightly leaning towards Merge and redirect. He is notable enough to be discussed somewhere for sure, but I don't know if that somewhere is his own article or not. I'll let other people answer that question. Bushytails 17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I just voted to keep some article on a website that sells wristbands for fans of Crystal Palace, so I pretty much have to be an inclusionist for the next week or so, so yes, keep. Youngamerican 23:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with non-notable CEO of non-notable company regardless of establishment of wikipedia -- wikipedia does not have sweeping credibility to put itself in a posistion of notoriety. as far as it is concerned, it is self promotion which is most often grounds for deletion. final reason: vanity. Fsdfs 00:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Unfocused. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-14 T 07:17:28 Z
  • Delete. Verifiable does not equal encylopaedic. Proto t c 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Bomis and WMF. Delete, article does not establish notability. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Jimbo 1 removed mention of him from Bomis. See above. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I'm convinced. Alphax τεχ 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that in the same edit where Jimbo Wales removed mention of Tim Shell as "minority stakeholder", he also removed himself as "majority owner", so it's either a correction regarding ownership, or that in capacity as "minority stakeholder" he didn't think Tim Shell warranted a mention. This shouldn't be assumed to mean he isn't notable in the article as CEO. Unfocused 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Lord Bob. For me, this is about user convenience. A user might want to know about the people who run this place, and WP seems like to a logical place to uncover such information. As I see it, it isn't about a double standard as much as full disclosure of what makes WP run. Xoloz 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikimedia Foundation has its own wiki for full disclosure, and the page where it publishes information about its board members is hyperlinked to above. We also have Meta for foundation-wide things. The main article namespace at Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all. We should not be basing our judgements upon what meta-information about the foundation it might be handy to disclose, since that is a decision for the primary sources (e.g. what the foundation decides to disclose on its own web site about its board members), not the encyclopaedia. We should be basing our judgements upon whether this biographical article meets our criteria for inclusion of biographical articles. It is not about full disclosure, and is about double standards. Your argument is employing the very double standard that we shouldn't be employing. Uncle G 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to disagree, Uncle G. While I was dimly aware that there other Wiki sources for this info, WP is the first place I (and I suspect most casual viewers) would look for this information. It needs to be here to be easily accessible, and I take easy accessibility to be part of full disclosure. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote very carefully, but I knew my logic was endorsing a kind of double standard in the interest of this easily accessible, full disclosure. As with all policies, when there are conflicts of interest, one must decide which one believes to be more fundamental, and I take the view that administrative transparency mildly trumps or, at least, augments this case for, WP:BIO. In any event, either because you did not read carefully, or because I was unclear, I do feel your tone was unduly harsh. Xoloz 16:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are arguing on the flawed basis that Wikipedia is, and should be, the primary source for information on the Wikimedia Foundation, to the world and to Wikipedians. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and, as I've already pointed out, there are other wikis for that. Those wikis exist for the very administrative transparency you are looking for. We aren't here to host and publish primary source material for the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for the Wikimedia Foundation any more than it is a hosting service for anyone else. It's clear, from the existence of the Foundation's wiki, that the Foundation doesn't expect us to be its hosting service, either. As I said, whether to have this biographical article in Wikipedia is not a matter of administrative transparency and full disclosure, and is a matter of double standards. If we had this little information about an executive of any other organization, which was only available from the person's autobiography on that organization's own web site and not verifiable from an independent second source, the consensus to delete would very probably be unanimous. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based upon the comments made by Lord Bob and Rob Church. Hall Monitor 20:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Martg76 07:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text is mostly from the Foundation wiki, which isn't really an external source, so not verifiable. (I voted deleted for Anthere and myself too). Angela. 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? The point of the externality of sources is whether they are trustworthy; if a source is trustworthy, then the information is verifiable. Are you suggesting that the Foundation wiki isn't trustworthy? Xoloz 11:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this." — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth.

        Looking for multiple independent sources is just as much good encyclopaedism as it is good journalism. The problem with the source is not that it is external. It is that it is not independent of Tim Shell himself, and is tantamount to autobiography. As Wikipedia:autobiography says, and as the preceding quotation implies, autobiographies have verifiability problems. Furthermore: They definitely cannot contribute towards notability. Self-promotion does not automatically make one notable. Other people have to regard the person as notable. See above. Uncle G 16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

        • I'll respond here to all your points, though some of my counterpoints will be brief. In the case of a Wikimedia board member, WPians are uniquely positioned to maintain a verifiability check on the content that is posted in these articles, as least as it relates to relevant professional details. Zaphod Beeblebrox' autobio was not subject to Wiki revision; patently false claims are likely to be removed, given the dilligence and active interest of the community in its leaders.
As for the rest, I simply disagree that I proceed from a false premise. Experience indicates to me, and the Keep votes here do also, that Wikimedia's board members are more likely to remain unknown if some provision is not made for their information to be listed in article space; if your concern for a double standard is not calmed by a faith in the ability of our board members to be reasonable (and to be overseen by the Wiki editing community), then -- by all means -- tag them with a special disputed tag, highlight them in a caution color, bemark in any appropriate way to suggest that they are different. In the final analysis, though, I find that their special status within the Wikimedia world creates a special need for WP articles. I make this finding based on a firm belief that their biographies should be transparent, and that -- without WP articles -- they are not sufficiently so. Feel free to disagree, but I find the suggestion that my analysis is "false" to be strangely positivistic. We aren't discussing a bare philosophical theorem. We are considering alternatives for the priorities of the WP. You value more the strict enforcement of a guideline; I, an interest in making our leaders' information very easily viewable to even the most casual user. No one has a "false premise"; these are simply competing values in tension, each value with its own merit to recommend it. Xoloz 05:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CEO of notable company.  Grue  17:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Meatpuppets-be-gone! —Cryptic (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So who's your meatpuppet, Cryptic? (And are you assuming good faith? I recognize the user names of every participant in this discussion.) Unfocused 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete' or speedy --Celestianpower hablamé 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Szbarro[edit]

Would be copyvio from [23] except its presumably Szbarro who posted it. Unverifiable, nn, advertisement, implausible (although I can imagine him performing a 3-way with Madge and Wee Willy all right. Dlyons493 Talk 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advert? Hoax? Joke? Vanity? Uh, whatever it is, make it go away. MCB 06:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we also delete the page of the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Please live and let live. Tomas Szbarro
      • There are some issues with the page as it stands. Firstly, it's copy violation from the site mentioned unless it's your site and you're releasing the material into the public domain. Secondly, how do we verify the accuracy of anything on the site? It may be perfectly valid but how can it be checked? Thousands of people with no relationship to them have written about the Rolling Stones and The Beatles. Perhaps you could register as a user and put this material on your user page for the moment? Once the above has been addressed there might be scope for making an article from it. Dlyons493 Talk 23:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Four Google hits for "Tomas Szbarro". NN band advert. Dismas|(talk) 10:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hoax/joke. Did anyone listen to the MP3? It's almost funny (the operative word being "almost"). —Lifeisunfair 14:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Regardless of any other considerations, notability is not asserted. Very well-written, though. The style of writing leads me to believe that the author would maybe enjoy contributing to Everything2... this stuff doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, though. --Ashenai (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Celestianpower hablamé 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Watkins[edit]

entry lacks relevancy, looks self-written --80.136.85.43 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Over 400 Googles [24]. Probably self-written all right but reasonably notable. Only other edit of this anon Afd creator is to that article back in July. Dlyons493 Talk 20:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, gets pcworld.com hits etc. Kappa 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not provide sufficient encyclopedic notability. Gamaliel 18:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Jkelly 21:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor the vengeful[edit]

Not enough context. The series is a redlinked so I can't tell if it is anime, computer game or what. Google gets less than ten distinct hits for "Trevor the vengeful" and most are wikipedia. Non-notable. My first thought was to contact the contributor and ask for additional information but it's an IP with only one contribution. RJFJR 01:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing to tell what the character is or what the game is. - Sensor 03:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the series itself doesn't have an article, then neither should its main character. — JIP | Talk 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a very short article with little or no context. Added the tag. Jkelly 16:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a WP:CSD A7 - person with no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNKNOWN[edit]

MMORPG characters are inherently non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • well, I'd like to think that he is, considering there are over 17,000 players world-wide who play the game. This user in particular is ranked between 1 and 3, making him notable to the Stargate-nerd community! keep!Hunterd 12:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. --GraemeL (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious vanity, NN subject. Note to Hunterd above: 17,000 is not a lot for a game. Numerous MMORPGs have hundreds of thousands of players. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, he's still non-notable... and since he's between 1 and 3, does that make him #2? Delete fancruft.--Isotope23 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable player of a non-notable game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article!!! oh and you know what I meant by between 1 and 3... and thank you Starblind for that note... User: A Man In Black: Stargate Wars is a huge game in the stargate franchise. it is like the equivalent of the Star Wars novels... --[[ZPMMaker 15:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
    • Please vote only once. And it's the equivalent of Star Wars fanfic; it's an unauthorized, fan-made MUD based on a popular SF property. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. btw i realised i could change my nickname to zpmmaker... (but i am actually hunterd) -- ZPMMaker 15:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and please stop voting multiple times; they will not count in your favor and serve only to irritate the closing admin (you're free to continue to reply, just leave out the vote) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get a life :) Renata3 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says the person taking part in a vote to see if it should remain in an encyclopedia. :) the wub "?!" 22:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we get the developers to extend mediawiki to automatically detect and reject all articles about people's videogame alter-egos. heh. CDC (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CDC. Anyone fancy filing a request at bugzilla? the wub "?!" 22:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could've been speedied, per no claim of notability. Ambi 03:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete game-cruft vanity. 64.4.104.2 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. you can delete this on the fact that the character is not notable, but you will not be able to delete the Stargate Wars article; for subjects that are not people do not have to be notable according to the rules! ZPMMaker 11:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Isayev[edit]

Page doesn't assert significance of this person. Was linked at Belarus national football team as current manager, but this info is wrong. Monkbel 14:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two google hits [25] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 03:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webermath[edit]

Neologism, Original research. cohesion | talk 04:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is outstanding!!!

Although the math doesn't work, I find myself opening up new channels of thought and coming up with new ideas for my students.

John Turner

  • Delete, appears to be a neologism. As an aside. "John Turner" above shares the same IP as the person who created the artice, and the IP's two contributions are creating the article and the comment above. Maybe the article is some form of vanity? Saberwyn 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. The article states "Webermath is that branch of mathematics designed to defy current mathematical laws. Webermath was created by Keith Weber in August/September 2005. Webermath has several branches. These are Pronunciation math and i Math." Capitalistroadster 05:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, hoax, nonsense, vanity, non-notable. — JIP | Talk 11:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, senseless nonsense. Neologism. Palladian 08:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  03:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijihad[edit]

Neologism. consider BJAODN or delete. User:Daniel Lotspeich 18:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 05:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOJO[edit]

This article is just taking up space. Wikipedia can't have an article on every radio station. Banana04131 04:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Banana04131 04:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Radio station in Chicago, a large city, and Wikipedia has articles on many of its competitors. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, licensed radio station. Kappa 15:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Disagree with Banana, licensed radio stations are notable. Karmafist 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strong precedent for listing radio stations on wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper and we already have plenty of radio station articles. 23skidoo 18:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no-one is saying it, and there's an obvious precedent for including radio stations, Speedy keep. Dottore So 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Speedy keep. And by the way, can anyone explain to me why we can't, theoretically, have an article on every radio station? Right now the precedent includes most, but not all of them, and I'm not saying that that should necessarily be changed, but... we could, if the Wikipedia community agreed to it, indeed have an article on every radio station, right? This isn't Encyclopedia Brittanica around here, and thank god. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't object to keeping significant radio stations, I think there the ones that only have W and K call signs, but very small stations should be excluded. One source says there's 12,000 commercial radio stations in the U.S., so I suppose it's possible to include them all. However, the worldwide number is much higher, probably between 50,000 and 150,000. -- Kjkolb 02:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right now, "very small stations" are defined by precedent as being no larger in scope than one city. And I'm not arguing that the precendent should change. Just pointing out the possibilities. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 04:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we need to drop all of the ones that begin with C in Canada where many have a large number of listeners in the US? Using only 2 of the beginning letters for call signs is not the way this wiki should work. It is not only about the US. Vegaswikian 05:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was talking about establishing notability for U.S. stations only, not criteria for other countries. I'm kind of stumped trying to figure out how it could have been interpreted otherwise. W and K only have meaning in the U.S. as far as I know, and it would be nonsensical to exclude radio stations from other countries on that basis. Anyway, the point was that, from looking at the FCC website, it looks like very small stations in the U.S. get call signs like NJ9AZ and the commercial/bigger stations in the U.S. get the four letter call signs that begin with W or K.
            • Random point: commercial radio stations aren't the only notable ones, I think. I think if a station is commercial, that is more of a guarantee that it will be notable, though. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, that criteria may be too inclusive. 12,000 radio stations is a lot and if the stations in the rest of the world are judged by similar criteria, relevant to the country it's in, it will be a lot of stations. If there's only 50,000 stations in the world that would meet the criteria, it would be 6% of the total pages we currently have in Wikipedia (19% if it's 150,000). -- Kjkolb 09:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe we could create something like WP:MUSIC for radio stations? --Jacquelyn Marie 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds like a good idea. I think the current, informal criteria is whether is notable outside the area, but that doesn't make much sense to me. In mountainous areas, signals don't travel very far and if you can't hear the station, how would it become notable? Even the coastal range here in California (2 to 3 thousand feet where I live) severely limits the range of local stations. I also think that there could be non-commercial stations that are notable, although I think the big ones still get the W and K call signs and that the 12,000 number includes even small commercial stations. (I'm not saying that any station without them is non-notable, though). I'll look into developing criteria. -- Kjkolb 08:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barney Miller speedy keep Grutness...wha? 23:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am all in favor of articles on significant radio stations, such as some of the American superstations, or radio stations such as CJCA (one of my (blush) articles) which have some important historical heritage. However, most radio stations are like most schools in that they are utterly ordinary and devoid of any individual character. Denni☯ 08:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Licensed radio station. --rob 04:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Robert 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yocrunch[edit]

Non-notable, uninteresting product MacRusgail 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete unless if we plan to list every product ever, this should go Ashibaka (tock) 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No please: do not list every product ever :-) Gtabary 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless and until we come up with a good set of standards to determine brand notability. Clearly, this is different from the Mach 3, but how? Meelar (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have such a set of notability criteria for products. See WP:CORP. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have suggested merge, but there isn't enough material really decide where to merge it, nor is there any real loss in tossing it. --Gmaxwell 02:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Anyone who wants to keep lousy articles like this should spend some time to improve them instead, so they are less likely to end up on AFD. Quale 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... which is exactly what I've just done. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People independent of the company have written about the product, its marketing, its packaging, its manufacturing process, and even about inventive ways to incorporate it into a kosher diet. (See the references that I've added to the article.) The WP:CORP criteria for products are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep for the rewritten articel. Seems mildly notable. I wouldn't be devastated if this were deleted, however. DES (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good on Uncle G. Keep with the additions. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rewritten version establishes notability. --GraemeL (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable product. I'm not convinced that it's an original invention either. Bwithh 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. MCB 06:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable yoghurt-cruft. Why would the author choose to write about the product over the company, which would likely pass the notability test? Dottore So 11:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article about the company would be fine, but I'd guess it's more likely that someone would come to Wikipedia looking for information about this product than about the company. JamesMLane 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete brand with local/regional importance only, i.e. not even national, obviously not global. No unique features. Would, maybe, fit in in a list of the company's products, no need for an article. Nabla 18:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, brand with importance, if only local/regional. Kappa 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect/move to company page, which would solve the unlikely problem of a Wikipedia search for Yocrunch. Nothing links to this page. I don't see anything notable; Wikipedia doesn't cover the several more successful imitators of the product, so there's no call to identify the original one (even assuming that this is original). Precedent: Trix Yogurt and Danimals currently redirect to the company page. FRCP11 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 18:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Tyler Eisen[edit]

Non notable voice actor-nothing on IMDB and a handful of search results. Paul 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_13&oldid=1081093352"