Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 13 October 15 >

Purge server cache

October 14[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 Delete Wikibofh 22:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

屌[edit]

Foreign language dictionary definition. --Peruvianllama 08:26, 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. Physchim62 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-0[edit]

  • Delete Hoax Nonsense StephenJMuir 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This page has not been expanded: it has been completely replaced. It was originally an article on -0 in the field of mathematics, in which -0 is and always will be equal to +0. It is now an article on -0 in the field of computing, which is perfectly valid. StephenJMuir 10:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Keep per rewrite and link provided by User:Pilatus. Good work all on sourcing this and writing a useable article on the topic.--Isotope23 20:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What? the wub "?!" 22:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Keep per Pilatus. the wub "?!" 09:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NatusRoma 05:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Keep per User:Pilatus. NatusRoma 03:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this wasn't speedy deleted because??? Masterhatch 10:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC) With the added info and sources, I change my vote to Keep. Masterhatch 03:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. THIS IS NOT A HOAX as a this link will tell! Negative zeroes do occur in one's complement arithmetic. Pilatus 00:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kappa 01:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no negative zero. There may be a position in computer memory that is used to indicate the sign in non-zero numbers. A bitstring in a computer may be the same as zero except for that position. That does not make it negative zero. A more sensible use for that bitstring would actually be undefined value. −Woodstone 12:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs more work, and it should be noted that the -0 is usually a PITA, and one reason why 2's complement is preferred. -- Egil 13:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, 2's complement has its problems too. For example, an 8 bit 2's complement number has values in the range -128 thru +127. If you evaluate -(-128) you get -128 rather than +128! StephenJMuir 14:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually what you get is overflow; up to you to interpret the validity and value of the result. −Woodstone 15:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept of negative zero indeed exists in many floating point representations. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. John Walker even dedicated a whole page to this subject. [1] squell 05:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current page is completely different from the one nominated, and is now a valuable contribution to Wikipedia.-gadfium 20:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, possibly expand beyond computing. The original article didn't make too much sense, but it contained an apparent allusion to the temperature of -0 in statistical mechanics, which would be an interesting thing to discuss in the article. --Trovatore 20:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PrimeFan 20:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Itz 4 realz yo. It belongs in Category:Computer arithmetic, where there are many other weird applications, approximations, and abstractions of mathematical concepts. It is even referenced in W3C standards [2]. Current article text is looking OK. — mjb 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 0 (number) - Bwfc 20:29, 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 Wikibofh 22:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2-amino-1-oxodisilanol[edit]

Unverifiable. Note that the "inventor" is the student president at University of Alaska Fairbanks[3] Pburka 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This could be touching on a broader topic of what organic compounds should be incorporated into wikipedia. I have a copy of the Merck Index lying around, which I could open up and start entering all kinds of random chemicals. Some certainly deserve attention (e.g. aspirin) while other molecules like the one at issue here are truly non-notable.) --Daniel Lotspeich 03:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we could keep chemicals that are regulary used in households and industrial processes, and those that are notable for some other reason. There should be at least one medium to large paragraph about its uses and not its properties. -- Kjkolb 04:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A guideline per Daniel Lotspeich is probably a good idea, but I think one can safely predict that whatever it may suggest, this would fall well below threshhold. Dottore So 08:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research (plus WP is not a crystal ball). But I think that once they are successfully synthesised and characterised, all chemicals should be notable - WP is not paper. --DrTorstenHenning 09:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per DrTorstenHenning CLW 13:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Masterhatch 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete could be considered probable vanity. If not, it does not warrant an article. Could perhaps be mentioned elsewhere, but as it has not been successfully synthesized, it is relatively unimportant. Cool3 04:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this compound is ever made and if someone has the time and energy it will be simple to recreate a more worthy {{chem-stub}} than this. Physchim62 15:04, 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 Keep. Physchim62 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

56 Aquilae[edit]

Nom&vote delete. What is at all notable about THIS star? There are, to quote Carl Sagan, BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of stars. That's more than even people on the planet, yet every person does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Daniel Lotspeich 04:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps deletion not the right course, but what really is it about this star that warrants its place here. I can easily peak out my window now and there are stars. So what?--Daniel Lotspeich 04:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change my vote to keep. I'll do some research on details of the star. --Daniel Lotspeich 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I'm a newbie and just changed my username from Daniel Lotspeich to Gaff. I want to be upfront about that to avoid any confusion or accusations of sockpuppetry.--Gaff talk 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all stars that can be seen by peeking out of the window. (apparent magnitude <=6). Kappa 04:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is linked to from a table entitled "Notable and named stars". In addition, 56 Aquilae is brighter than two planet-bearing stars within Aquila, which both have articles. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if it was a smaller star, like any number of the smaller stars that you posted last night Merovingian? I think that all of those ought to remain here, but if others disagree, perhaps we need to establish guidelines for star notability. Simply, I think that all known stars are notable. As new stars are discovered (even if only knowable by sophisticated instrumentation, they too should be logged.--Gaff talk 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless you can find something really good, there's about 1.0x10^21 stars, which would together take up quite a bit of server space. --CastAStone 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have read, server space is really not an issue with wikipedia. And I doubt seriously that all 1.0x10^21 stars will ever get logged, but good luck. When they do, my vote for ALL will be KEEP. Way more notable that all the Final Fantasy and WarCraft 3 garbaaaage that winds up on wikipedia.--Daniel Lotspeich 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable astronomical object. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful entry--but wikipedia should have only visible or 'historical' stars ie. apparent magnitude <=6 Eric A. Warbuton 07:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that Eric. I think that wikipedia should have every single star ever named or noted!--Gaff 07:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whenever an article is deleted from Wikipedia, a star goes out in the sky... Mind you, 57 Aquilae is a much more interesting object. Grutness...wha? 10:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random star. Pilatus 11:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not give any information that makes the star different from thousands of others. If it is indeed "notable" and "interesting", then write the reason for that down in the article, and I'll withdraw my vote. - Andre Engels 13:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of now, it looks like Pilatus and AndreEngels are only holdouts voting to delete. Hopefully they will come around so we can have a consensus. I really cannot see how this article will be deleted without creating a lot of controversy. As Marskell describes below, a better method of categorizing stars, e.g. by constellation will make for project in the future. For now, keep the article as it contains useful information.--Gaff talk 22:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gaff, when I said take a deep breath I didn't mean it to belittle you but to underscore that you need not get overly anxious about a vote that is going in the direction you desire. This article will be kept. Twelve to fifteen keep with two deletes is consensus. If twenty odd deletes appeared in the next minute it would still be kept (and note again I have not voted delete here). So don't worry! And don't badger the one or two people voting delete—they don't have to "come around." Start User:Gaff/Star chart. I will help you. Yes, these one liner entries could be placed in a more useful spot. Marskell 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DS 14:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — there are only a few thousand stars visible to the naked eye, and even fewer that have Flamsteed designations. That makes it notable enough to keep, at least in my book. :) — RJH 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if a star is not visible to the naked eye, it is still notable. Stars are significant enough by the mere fact of their existence. As will be every planet known and yet to be discovered. Asteroids may be questionable. Moons of planets are notable. All stars are notable. BTW I will sign this 'Gaff' but to avoid any accusations of sock puppetry, note that I am Daniel Lotspeich (nominator of this article for AfD in the first place).--Gaff 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Stars are significant enough by the mere fact of their existence." No: a mass of "hydrogen and helium" is non-notable in the same way the "bricks and mortar" of my corner store is non-notable—in some ways even more so, because at least I can provide incidental details of a corner store. Stars with planets, luminous and visible stars, stars in notable constellations etc., OK. I'll wait for a second sentence here to prove something of this sort. Marskell 21:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stars that are visible from where? Stars are not even in the same league as bricks and mortar on the corner store. I'm not arguing that every quark in every nucleus of every atom of helium in every star warrants an article. But I thought that wikipedia would contain the sum of all human knowledge or something along those lines. Lets start by agreeing that really, really big things like stars are notable and go from there. What about galaxies known to exist that are not visible to the naked eye? Should they be left out as well?? --Gaff talk 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Visible from here. "Systemic bias surely!" "Indeed, I'm systemically biased toward the Earth!" Yes, from a certain perspective stars are of course in a different league than corner stores but their representation here isn't. If I can't say anything about it beyond the fact of its existence (or non-notable incidentals—"red brick store," "m class star") I don't think it belongs. Wiki is not a (star or any other type of) directory. Note, however, I'm not delete. Just again, prove its more than your average mass of a quintillion pounds of hydrogen :). Marskell 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its an issue of scale. Every known star is notable as far as I am concerned. Even if not visible to the naked eye. (As an aside, I wear contacts. If some evening I do not have on my contacts and cannot see a certain star, can I vote to have it deleted?) I'm not suggesting we catalog every brick just because each is unique in its own way, but every star? Stars are just so darned big that how can one argue they are non-notable. I'm also not suggesting that wikipedia be merely a directory of dry facts either. That's why the article need still be labeled stub. But in the case of extraordinarily gigantic things like stars, I think they are notable by the mere fact of their existence...--Gaff talk 23:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they are darned big, but to repeat if you can't say more about them than the fact that they exist they don't belong. Do you know how many M class stars astronomers figure are in the galaxy? Yes we could have a quarter trillion pages (not a joke) with the following "8978735812cxh is an M-class red dwarf" or "3846751191olm is an M-class red dwarf" or, say, "5770192281jqa is an M-class red dwarf" but, hey, I don't think that's why wiki is here. Or this wiki at least. Start wikistars! Marskell 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? A quarter million M-class red dwarfs? That would take a long time to catalog. How long do you think that this encyclopedia will be around? Is money to finance the storage of an encyclopedia as all encomassing as this one hopes to be a limiting factor, to keep it from ever containing the sum of human knowledge? Even to limit it from containing known verifiable objects of the magnitude of an M-class red dwarf? If 100 yrs from now wikipedia is still around and people are wanting something to put in the encyclopedia, only to find that guys like Merovingian have already cataloged all 'visible' stars, then will it be worthy of entry? What is the harm in having lesser stars here alongside the pieces of magic armor from Warcraft 3 or an obsolete operating system? --Gaff talk 23:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, a quarter trillion (six orders of magnitude difference). And no, we don't and never will have server space for a quarter trillion anything. Marskell 23:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, lets cross that bridge when we get there. For now, I vote every star stays. Out of curiosity, how much server space would that require?--Gaff talk 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously folks, write articles on all the stars in the sky. There will be no problem finding server space. There are in fact doctors around here that have an interest in WP projects and will help finance the endeavor.--Gaff talk 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep agree with Kappa. Jeez guys! There are only 2,000 naked eye visible stars! Wiki is not paper, for crying out loud. There is no downside to keeping this star. -- Geo Swan 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have more articles for little villages in the middle of nowhere than stars. The stars are going to be around a lot longer than the villages. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Astronomy, light pollution notwithstanding, is actually a very interesting subject for us insomniacs without a social life. --Fire Star 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notable or not, there is no point in dedicating an entire article to: Phi2 Cancri (abbr.: 23/φ2 Cnc) is a star in the constellation Cancer. Its apparent magnitude is 6.30. (As an example) The existence of something does not make it notable until we know something about it. If something revolutionary is discovered about any of the 15 other one-line star articles, then I would emphatically vote to keep them, but as is, there is nothing notable enough about most of these stars to have them in anything but List of stars in the constellation Cancer. - Pureblade | ☼ 03:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And these are stubs that are being created here. Not ready for Featured Article to be sure, but as stubs go, they are valid. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but stars are significant and notable.--Gaff talk 04:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. They are all stubs. Ready to be expanded.--Gaff talk 10:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First Gaff, take a deep breath. It's going to be kept OK? Yes, you're repeating all "stars are significant and notable" but there is no argument as to why beyond darned big and that strikes me as insufficient. "Keep but expand"? In a large number of cases expansion isn't really going to be possible. There is very very little that actually differentiates one star from another and that which does—metallicity say—isn't a notability claim. As, I think, Martin Rees once said "an insect is more complicated than a star." A series of single sentence entries doesn't strike me as useful; indeed, creating constellation lists and having the star name redirect there might be more user-friendly. Marskell 13:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your expressed concern regarding the volume of my respirations. Rest assured my breathing is just fine. Its a good thing that the article will be kept as it along with any article on a star is notable (as per all of my arguments above).--Gaff talk 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I do appreciate your comments about keeping things user friendly. A centralized list of stars might prevent sprawl. It will be a very long list, but might be a better way to go tha trillions of separate articles. Although, there is something cool about hitting the random article link in the sidebar and finding a star.--Gaff talk 16:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a centralized list for all: arrange by constellation and have each individual star name re-direct to it. If not in a constellation then yes, a generic list. Save individual star pages for stars that have planets, are super-massive etc. And create a template chart: apparent magnitude, spectral class, planets (yes/no), metallicity, variable (yes/no) etc. Searching "56 Aquilae" and coming up with a list like this rather than the page as it stands would be more useful. Marskell 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article already links back to its home constellation. I see no harm in having a separate article for each star. I do like your proposal for organazing stars on the constellation page, although the way they are already is nice as well. Kudos to Merovingian btw for tirelessly plugging in star article after star article the way that he has been recently. My vote remains keep.--Gaff talk 08:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RJH. Xoloz 15:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there a database somewhere we could import info on stars from, a la Rambot? the wub "?!" 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All these uninteresting stars don't need an article of their own. They should be listed on one page. Any star that is notable can get a page to itself. Seriously, it's bad enough clicking "Random Article" and getting a US county every second time without hundreds of stubs about unremarkable stars compounding the problem. Reyk 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add: just because a certain bit of information is worth having in Wikipedia, it doesn't automatically make it worthy of an article to itself. In fact, by having a seperate article for information that could just as easily be listed in a table, the reader loses out by not being able to compare the thing in question with other similar things. Reyk 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably merge to Aquila. Failing that, delete. All the information presented is factual and encyclopedic, but as its own article it's a permanent stub. Some stars are notable, but this star is not. ~~ N (t/c) 14:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the page Aquila, you will find an entry for Aquila (constellation). On that page, near the bottom is a table of notable and named stars. The question here is more about how to handle all stars, not just this particular star.—Gaff talk 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then, merge to that list. As to the issue of "all stars", that must be decided on a case-by-case basis, but I say that stars get articles if and only if there is something more to say about them than the standard luminosity, spectral class, size, date of discovery, etc. ~~ N (t/c) 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may in fact be the most reasonable course, then maybe have redirects from the names of lesser stars back to their specific constellation. The "all stars" issue is a current issue, that maybe needs to be addressed on more than a case by case basis. Merovingian and other users have been working hard to create many, many articles on individual stars that they feel are notable enough to warrant individual articles. Perhaps a project or taskforce 'stars' could be created to reach a consensus on how to handle this question. I was the one to first nom this for deletion. However, I see that it is not a clear cut issue, as evidenced by the fact that the contributor is Merovingian, who has made extensive contributions to WP and is running for the arbitration committee. There are many, many star articles on WP now, and perhaps a more formal policy needs to be created to manage such an enormous topic.—Gaff talk 20:47, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as dup of Punknet.com --fvw* 23:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adholes.com[edit]

commercial vanity; not notable Gator1 22:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 22:58, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Wikibofh 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires IV[edit]

  • Delete This article contains information about a video game which hasn't even been announced. This article is purely guesswork Dan M 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. KeithD (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BUT I would vote for the rentention of the article if Ensemble Studios had not announced that Age of Empires III will most likely be the last of the series. Though the information that he provided is not confirmed by any source, if you look at the pattern for the time periods of the current trilogy, what he is saying would almost certainly be true, if they were to actually make said game. So delete because it isn't happening, not because the content is crystal ball.Frag
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per not a crystal ball. Over-eager fan. Marskell 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 22:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, games that haven't been announced should not be added to Wikipedia (or any other item that hasn't been announced for that matter.Drizzt2 02:09, 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 Keep. Physchim62 15:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air Harrods[edit]

commercial and vanity Gator1 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no rule against having an article about a company. If you find any of the article's language vain, please change it. Rhobite 14:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhobite. Kappa 14:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've tweaked the wording to make it as NPOV as possible & removed the external link.--Isotope23 15:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 17:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please rhobite is right this is not cleanup that is what {{cleanup}} ant other templates are made for Yuckfoo 23:53, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 11:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aktive_Studenters_Forening[edit]

This is a page, not in English, about a student organisation at the University of Bergen. The organisation has no historical significance and I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. In short the article gives brief introduction to the organisation heritage (nothing notable, besides being the second oldest organisation at UiB), what their primary function has been and what it is and finally a list of current and previous leaders. The article was marked for translation more than 14 days ago and nothing has been translated yet so I'm marking this article for deletion. Michaelll 17:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Swedish? Finnish? Danish? CDC (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norvegian, probably. It's a student organization at the University of Bergen. The style of the article is a bit suspicious, it sounds like it could be a copyvio. —Ilmari Karonen 23:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is Norwegian and it is a student organisation at the University of Bergen. I'm a student there :). The page doesn't contain anything that should be in an encyclopedia, just some info about the student organisation. —michaelll

Delete. Not notable, untranslated. Physchim62 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete... I'm accepting michaelll's statement that this is a non-notable student organization on good faith.--Isotope23 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no:Aktive Studenters Forening

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. DS 13:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alice obstrum[edit]

Blatant hoax / nonsense. -- RHaworth 09:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Blatant" is a kind of an understatement. Delete. -- ��Captain Disdain 09:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Wonderful. (well I laughed to the point of coffee entering my nasal cavities) Grutness...wha? 10:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN - quite literally fantastic. What a corker. Naturenet | Talk 11:42, 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 (?) 22:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Singh (Athlete)[edit]

Vanity; non notable

  • Delete, as per nomination. Tintin 15:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 16:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto.Humansdorpie 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I Go to McGill - Urban Legend.TheTodd 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep. He's a stud.MedoicoreSpeller 17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Save Him.McGillBeauty 17:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • The three votes that I have deleted above were made by the same IP editor 65.92.63.218. Tintin 21:07, 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 20:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Chocolate Cranberry[edit]

Fancruft. It's a fictional chocolate bar from the TV series Lost. KeithD (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I love Lost, but this isn't even notable in the context of the show.--Isotope23 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, Very Weak Keep w/ Major Expansion Abrams seems to have been drawing a lot of attention to these candy bars--they appear in the hatch and in the flashbacks, and Rose has taken one to give to her husband upon their reuniting. The author really should have gone into much more detail, but, because of how the candy bars have been portrayed thusfar in season 2, there is a good possibility that they could become almost as important as "The Numbers." Frag 19:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Apparently, the show's creator, J.J. Abrams, borrowed the name from a popular bite-sized candy made by the Japanese candymaker, Meiji Seika. I tried wikifying the introduction and providing a bit more context, but found that my knowledge on its signficance is fairly limited, due to its so-far very limited exposition on the show. However, if Lost maintains the patterns that it has established in the past, the fact that they have made a particular point of mentioning the candy several times in the show means that it will have some strange significance later on. Frag
      • Better article after your edit Frag, but I still stand by my vote because WP:NOT a crystal ball. JJ and Damon love misdirection... there is no evidence this will ever be of any significance in the context of the show.--Isotope23 20:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mention this in the Lost article, but this doesn't need its own article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching vote to: Merge - This is going to be too sigificant to just let it go unnoticed. Here's another example of its significance not previously noticed: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/board/thread/27583807. Frag
    • Care to explain for those of us without and uninterested in IMDB accounts? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone has made a screencap of a season one episode where Boone is eating an Apollo chocolate bar. At the IMDB boards, some people are speculating that it means something, some people are speculating that it's just a prop, and it's nothing more than the chocolate bar in the Lost world, like Oceanic Airlines is the airline in the Lost world. In terms of Wikipedia, I think it may well become significant, and require its own article, but at the moment it's not significant, and we have nothing to go on beyond our own speculation. KeithD (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, sorry, I have my IMDB account info saved in Firefox, so I completely forget that you have to be logged in to view the threads. My apologies. Anyway, let's just merge this into Lost (television) for the time being. Frag
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 11:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Au Courant Interior Design Consultants[edit]

Advertising/vanity page - single line referring to an interior design firm in Michigan. Google search for "Au Courant Interior Design Consultants" returns 7 hits. Humansdorpie 15:36, 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 Merge with Barbershop music Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barbershop in Germany[edit]

non-notable and non-sensical Gator1 19:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Gator1 19:24, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bingiee Shiu[edit]

Article on a high school music teacher. He has barely enough accomplishments to perhaps constitute a claim of notability, and hence is perhaps not a CSD. Nevertheless, being involved in a bunch of youth music programs is hardly encyclopedic. This is one of the problems with having a few thousand high school articles. R. fiend 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn high school teacher. Dottore So 08:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is somewhat notable. It is a big high school, and his achievements are worth knowing. -- Logophile (attributed vote -- Kjkolb 14:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy I'd consider this A7 material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per R. fiend. -- Kjkolb 14:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 14:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly, borderline speedy deletion candidate as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 19:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Even the message at the bottom about who wrote it is vanity. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blueh[edit]

Protoglogism, only used within a Harry Potter fan group Zeimusu | Talk page 10:34, 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 Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boltfish[edit]

Non-notable label. --fvw* 22:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio from this site[[4] --JJay 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, but they're a non-profit label so it's not a speedy :( --fvw* 22:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The label may be non-profit, but the boltfish site clearly asserts copyright and has the same text [[5]] --JJay 23:17, 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 20:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonermeister[edit]

Neologism/dictionary/vanity page. Probable speedy deletion candidate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete made-up words. —Cryptic (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. not even funny. Youngamerican 02:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above. Rd232 23:08, 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 20:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boon Squad aka B-unit[edit]

  • Delete: This is a vanity article about 4 kids (Esa Holmes, K-dot, Drej and Temp) who started some kind of club in LA. It doesn't deserve a wiki page. Furthermore, the page itself doesn't like to anything, is poorly written and filled with English mistakes. It's nowhere near Wikipedia's level of quality. -- Ritchy 26 September 2005.
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete per nom. —Cryptic (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn gangcruft. Or whatever (shooter game clan?). MCB 22:02, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BrainJam[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --fvw* 22:17, 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 Merge into Creatures of Magic: The Gathering. DES (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broodstar[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. While the article text is about a specific type of Magic: The Gathering deck, the title is a specific card and creature. Thus, merge to Creatures of Magic: The Gathering (which even has subsections for game impact), and see if it survives in that article. —Cryptic (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mirrodin. Broodstar isn't even a creature type, so there's really no place for it in the Creatures article. -- Grev -- Talk 21:30, 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 20:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Makes Kitty Scared[edit]

  • Delete This seems to be a vanity article. --Zantastik talk 22:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is not a vanity article. my name is Martin Longhitano. I made this page, but was not involved in the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.40.182 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Jersyko talk 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 07:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, only google hits are us and a mirror. —Cryptic (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. *drew 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this has ever been commercially distributed in any format or shown at film festivals. It seems that this is a man who has made home videos of him scaring his cats and is eminently non-notable. I would cite Wikipedia: Wikiproject Films except I cannot find any reference to that projects notability or importance criteria. I highly doubt that this film meets them, however. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calexico[edit]

vanity and non-notable Gator1 12:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 12:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability requirements: five albums on a large indie label (Quarterstick, distributed by Touch and Go), several world tours, and a feature article in Paste Magazine. --keepsleeping say what 13:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable band, their EP with Iron & Wine has received a lot of press. Rhobite 13:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Meets standards easily. --badlydrawnjeff 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above comments... Touch and Go confers notability. I did remove the similar artist section though as that is more appropriate for Amazon or Allmusic.--Isotope23 14:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as meeting WP:music. They have release five alums on a large independent label. They have an Allmusic.com page showing that they have made the Billboard independent charts and their 2005 album In the Reins reached #125 on the album charts. Their Allmusic.com article is here see [6] Definitely notable within their genre. Capitalistroadster 18:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it meets WP:MUSIC. Isotope23, you did the right thing so kudos to you. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable per definition of notable. Jessamyn 04:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 04:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I have at least two co-workers and several friends online who like this band. Andrew Levine 23:19, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Irresponsible[edit]

Nominated for speedy as This is a joke; this episode isn't real.. Neither hoaxes are CSDs, nor I know if this is one, although it looks like so: it's the creator's only edit in WP. Nabla 00:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a fake. --Hoovernj 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it looks like a typical Simpsons article, nothing besides this page came up on a search for "Call Me Irresponsible" Simpsons see [7]. Nor is it on our List of The Simpsons episodes for Season 17. As well, the Simpsons season started in September not August. That suggests that there are severe verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 01:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax.--Gaff 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - smells hoaxy to me CLW 13:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite it so it's about the Frank Sinatra song instead of a non-existent Simpsons episode. Andrew Levine 22:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument suggests "delete" of this article. The article's name can always be reused for unrelated material in future. Rd232 23:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Rd232 23:15, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Spare a Dime?[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Apparently a SpongeBob SquarePants episode, so keep and cleanup. —Cryptic (talk) 13:05, 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 --Celestianpower hablamé 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Wood[edit]

This almost-orphaned article should be deleted because the subject is nn and there are POV issues, which probably cannot be solved by editing. The only link is Bagram torture and prisoner abuse. The subject, Capt. Wood, received two Bronze stars and was not the subject of a court-martial. Not sure why she's should be on Wikipedia. Joaquin Murietta 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This recipient of a high U.S. military award is notable. As for the controversy, sections describing both sides of the argument and sources other than Knight Ridder newspapers should be added. She has been mentioned in major media outlets including The Guardian and News 24. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me wonder -- There are many Bronze Star awardees. The Medal of Honor is a higher award than the Bronze Star, but Wikipedia does not have a separate article for every Medal of Honor recipient. Should we?Joaquin Murietta 17:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to create those that you see fit JM. This is what WP is all about =:-) --Cactus.man ✍ 09:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are serious POV problems with this article. If it is kept it should be made clear that these are allegations not always from reliable sources and no charges have been laid against her. If we are to keep something on the Internet like this when there have been no charges of miscoduct laid against her, we should make sure that the article is accurate and NPOV.Capitalistroadster 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It amounts to agitprop. She's a minor figure ("implied that she was the author"), and it is highly unlikely that a fair and full account could ever be written. The Geneva Convention reference is vague and likely misleading. That's a big issue and this article isn't the place for it. -- Randy2063 21:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Disclaimer - I started this article
I located a newspaper article[8] that reported testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee documenting her role in drafting the interrogation techniques, and acknowledging their use could be a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I believe this makes her notable. -- Geo Swan 12:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article also says that Capt. Woods was not at the hearing. So now we have an article about a woman who was not charged with any crimes or offenses, not court martialed, and not called as a witness. The Washington Post reported that she told investigators that she objected to the CIA being there, but she was over ruled. [9]. Joaquin Murietta 14:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She might not yet be a woman charged with any crimes or offences, but this article says: "Attorneys for soldiers charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal believe that Wood was instrumental in setting policy for interrogations at the Iraqi prison - just as she did in Afghanistan.". This makes her eminently notable as an integral part of current US military interrogation policy, particularly in relation to the War on Terror. Whether she was a mere 'instrument' of implementation of the policy, as was Lynndie England, is neither here nor there. This person is notable for these reasons and an article is warranted. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lack of NPOV is NOT a valid criteria for listing on AfD. It should have a NPOV tag instead and a listing on WP:PNA, with discussion on the talk page. I have concerns about some of the wording and claims in the article, but I see nothing there that cannot be sorted out. This person is notable as someone instrumental in establishing US military interrogation policies in Afghanistan, and Iraq, at Bagram and Abu Ghraib ([10]). --Cactus.man ✍ 09:46, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castleroid and Wolfensteinroid[edit]

  • We need this one, finally casting out the reality between the truth and the false!!! -Jaakko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paavo (talk • contribs) 8:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I say keep it. It's a commonly used term. This is an accepted subgenre for the series, and those new to the series shoukld have a definition for this teme when they find it. - Darkmoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.156.80 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete or whatever, plus food for thought: [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.237.11 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with this article. 'Castleroid' has been used by fans for years since SotN and CotM's release. Even Konami reffered to it as 'Metroidvania'. Whoever put this up for deletion, could I ask you, why? - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.175.83 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the term is useless, I don't care what hardcore mega gamers say on that message board -Jaakkooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The term is acceptable. If accurately describes this sub-genre, the Castlevania games starting with Sotn, and including Cotm, HoD, Aos, and finally, DoS. -Morgoth Galaxius — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.64.194 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Castleroid" is a widely used term in the Castlevania community, and as such it deserves to be properly defined. This article achieves this goal, and for that reason it should stay. -Pfloydguy2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.85.60 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Jaakkooo', if you're the one who put this up for deletion, you're doing a bad job as a moderator. -anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.175.83 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This term is a viable term as applied to the Castlevania gaming series. It does not need to be deleted. -DragonCub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoncub77 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, RickK memorial sockpuppet limit breached. (Oh, and all google hits are to forum posts.) I'm also listing the related article Wolfensteinroid here; that doesn't get any google hits at all. —Cryptic (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft dicdef with enough socks to sew a monkey.--Isotope23 15:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as neologisms, dicdefs. flowersofnight 15:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. *drew 16:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Neologisms at best, and the sockpuppet flood is seldom a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been a victim of sabotage from day one. Us viewers have learned that some people can roast out other people`s 100% Wikipedia approved (by the deletion policy) valid articles by:

1) Reporting a random article for deletion with no case, followed by

2) Spamming the feedback discussion with negative remarks, thus making the sentinels feel like all is bullshit.

3) Some other measures include measures like adding ridiculing other articles, like this "Wolfensteinroid" article was designed to do.

4) Editing delicious typos to a given article. Somebody edited and has been editing the Castleroid article to have the same childish typos from day one. Like "Castleloid", and RPG-element to "PPG-elements", three times now. Everytime I edit them accurately back again, somebody else is editing these same things back to have these same typos.

So this is pure sabotage. Sentinels please check the issue like it is, and mind the bickering, since it is most probably caused by one particular angry person, who wishes to sabotage an article he/she doesn`t like.

Paavo

  • I'll tell you what. I'm assuming good faith here, so if you can post a link to the version of the page you want me to look at (past edit that you had fixed up), I'll take a look and judge based on that.--Isotope23 20:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little-used neologisms. Metroidvania is more commonly used, in my experience, than Castleroid, but I'd vote delete on articles about either. (Wolfensteinroid is someone's in-joke term; the lame neologism used to refer to Metroid Prime seems to be First-person adventure, Nintendo's marketing term for the "genre".) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, a Castleroid and a Metroidvania are the same. Both terms are popularized by modern gaming media of today. The purpose of my article was to make clearer how the original term makers feel. And this is what I stated in this article, also. And both Castleroid and Metroidvania are adapted from the fandom, it is a generally accepted subgenre, as synthetic it might sound. Now if fandom`s opinion isn`t enough, I apologise. But since those terms live even inside even Konami`s official sites at http://www.konami.com/gs/officialsites/castlevania/ (adapted from the fandom, OUR fandom, mind you), and this article in itself is very coherent and on point, I do not understand what the problem is. I read the policy of deletion, and in my understanding everything should be quite kosher. Except the fact, that this article has had a huge amount of sabotage for some reason (like some obvious hinders, like that "Wolfensteinroid" article.) Funny, how this person has had more influence in the judging process, than the actual article makers! Well whatever, I trust you guys know the best, but I plea you would actually learn the situation, like by visiting Konami official sites, if nothing else. Been inside the Castlevania fandom from the eighties, and I sincerely didn`t mean this article as a joke, eventhough all this petty sabotage might make it seem like BS. So sentinels, all I ask is for you to get a neutral grasp, if you indeed need to control this article. -Paavo
      • This might merit a one-liner in the Castlevania article. This is not an encyclopedic subject unto itself, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary in any case. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a commonly known subgenre of gaming isn`t a valid subject to make an article inside Wikipedia, I rest my case, and apologise. -Paavo
          • It's not a subgenre; it's a set of shared characteristics in the recent games in one series. As such, it merits mention in the article for the series. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still, even Konami recognizes it as a subgenre, and embraces it. Genralized by the fandom. But yes, it might be appropriate to mention it in the Castlevania article, if nothing else. -Paavo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celes Chère[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however. If you ask me, all of these deletion nominations were made in very bad faith.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. Delete the GameFAQs-style material and it'll work, per A Man in Black. BrianSmithson 17:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or, relunctantly, Merge into an appropriate article): goodish or improveable article of a major character in a notable game, can't say why it shouldn't exist. And "only appeared in one game" is a pretty silly note since all Final Fantasy games are content-wise 95% different from each other. (And considering the vote for all characters is probably going to be voted keep/merge anyway and it's three AM here, in case anyone's reading and someone's counting these, I'd repeat this for all of the characters but I won't. Just saying this once because this article happened to be on my watchlist.) --Wwwwolf 00:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. Full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This article is full of information on the character and it is a fair-sized one in its own right. If every FF6 character article were merged into one, it would make for too large a one going off on too many tangents. Cornince 00:31, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship by organized religion[edit]

As written, this article is just an anti-religous screed. There is certainly a neutral, scholarly article that could be written on this topic, but that is far beyond my expertise. As written, this article should be deleted.--TheJeffMiller 04:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: This article on the thought-stopping techniques of religious sects should be kept. At least two similar articles, moral compass (which garners 4x as many goofle hits as moral panic) and thought police (4x the hits of thought crime), have recently fallen prey to the VfD process, while thousands of articles with dubious notability are spared. The propensity for such hasty deletions may, itself, stem from a pervasiveness of intolerance toward the questioning of authority fostered, in part, by certain religions. Ombudsman 04:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wackymacs 13:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: while the article needs considerable rewriting and expansion, this is an important topic and shld not be deleted hastily. have edited out some pov material Doldrums 12:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this can be made neutral and doesn't even look that bad in its present form. It needs wider coverage, though. -- Kjkolb 14:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Can't see anything overly POV about it, it's a fairly neutral description of some examples of censorship by organized religion. Could be expanded, certainly, but that's no reason to delete. --Last Malthusian 15:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this material is better covered elsewhere, in Censorship and under the articles for the various religions. (And as of now there's not much content.) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I lean towards agreement with Wahoofive that this information could be better covered in articles about the respective religions and works mentioned. I fail to see any real reason to keep this article around under the current name. That being said, it has been in clean up a very short time and I'm going to wait to vote to see if anyone adds content that makes me change my mind about the value of this article.--Isotope23 15:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was undecided about this article but Wahoofive and Isotope23 have, I think, really put it in perspective; the only elements of the article which are about "censorship by organized religion" rather than "censorship by <particular organized religion>" are uncited personal-essay claims. Waiting to vote to see if someone adds something of substance, but what's there now isn't convincing me that the topic is sound. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's a valid topic (and in my opinion it is), it shouldn't be deleted, even if it needs a lot of work. That's what cleanup is for. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cleanup and expand per Jacquelyn Marie above. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jacqui. Xoloz 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid stub at this point. MCB 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • just barely keep. valid topic and material which could help form some basis for this article, but not very good at all yet. Mozzerati 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and rewrite I agree with the deleter pielover87
  • Keep as per Ombudsman.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Channel4.cc[edit]

Doesn't meet notability requirements for WP:MUSIC. Probably vanity. --Whitejay251 02:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Whitejay251 02:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom - Bwfc 12:50, 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 20:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Catmull[edit]

Article about at 17 year old winner of the "World Championship of Karate" with 78 google hits. non-notable bio Kewp 15:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable bio. feydey 14:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sufficiently notable Dlyons493 Talk 17:29, 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 Keep. Physchim62 15:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas pickle[edit]

I've studied Christmas fairly extensively, and I've never heard of anything like this. Plus, it would see the few comments made by people from Germany point to this not being the tradition it's made out to be. Maybe a merge into Christmas ornament or Christmas tradition as a section? Sahasrahla 21:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or barring that, merge to Christmas ornament. reason? we put one of these on my Christmas tree. Google picks up some interesting links [12]. Also, Berrien Springs, Michigan is the ""Christmas Pickle Capital of the World." --Kewp (t) 15:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christmas ornament. Could be notable there.-[[User:DakotaKahn|Dakota (Talk)]]
  • Strong Keep this is a semi-hoax, but a notable one. The pickles are quite commonly sold in the US (and probably other places) with the story that there's a German tradition behind them. The German origin story seems to be false, and the pickles aren't even sold there. However, the myth is so widely believed (and almost always hald as truth even by respectable sources) that it's worth documenting here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After Googling a bit, I've found an annual Christmas Pickle Festival as well as a published book called The Christmas Pickle (ISBN 0972523103) with an extended version of the legend. Changing vote to Strong Keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy has too much time on his hands...  :) Keep.--Isotope23 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per Andrew Lenahan as there is verifiable information about this topic. You learn something new everyday at this place. :>) Capitalistroadster 18:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this well-known and popular Christmas tradition. It is even showcased in the film Bad Santa where the fat kid gives a Christmas pickle he carved himself to Billy Bob Thornton's character.--Nicodemus75 20:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and sahasrahla can you please withdraw your nomination it is verifiable Yuckfoo 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good job on the research, Andy. Me, I'll throw in that in my family it's said that the Christmas pickle is a German-American Thing, but I don't know how verifiable that tidbit is. In any case, there's certainly enough information out there to merit a full article. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:46, 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 A7 nn-bio SPEEDY DELETE. -Doc (?) 19:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Edwards[edit]

nom&vote delete. Appears to be a nn bio and definite vanity. Working on a couple books apparently, but unless something more substantive can be shown, not encyclopedic. Gaff 18:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Clearly a vanity page --Ritchy 14 October 2005

This boy has a lot of potential. I would know, I taught him. He's recieved numerous awards and honors, and could end up being famous. Could it hurt to leave the page up? He had started writing his AB when I taught him, and that was 2 years ago. Clearly he must almost be done. He could even be looking for a publisher as we speak.

  • Wikipedia will be honored to have him once all that happens. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. By the way, welcome to the site!--Gaff 19:12, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikt: -Splashtalk 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuddies[edit]

  • Delete - Dictionary definition (at least in India). I can't believe we need an article on this or that it can possibly grown into one. -Tεxτurε 19:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary. Its frequent inclusion in Goodness Gracious Me meant it's a dictionary definition in England as well as India. KeithD (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as per KeithD. Goodness Gracious Me was ace! the wub "?!" 22:57, 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, a three-way split. -Splashtalk 02:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic of Music[edit]

Delete: already glossed at Chinese classic texts, with no less information than on its current separate page. --Dpr 09:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Seems like a reasonable redirect if it's not expanded. —Cryptic (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I've changed it into a basic stub. It should be okay. Mozzerati 22:16, 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. DES (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Bédard[edit]

  • Delete, top Google hit is Wikipedia itself, I can find little other evidence of the significance of Monsieur Bedard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budgiekiller (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Claude Bédard has played a major role in the translation industry in Canada, and, as such, perhaps deserve an article. However, the existing article does indeed sound more look a PR press release. A major rewrite is required — Grstain 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. The lack of Google hits in English is interesting. Are there links to his books? Joaquin Murietta 15:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite French Goole picks up >800 hits [13] Dlyons493 Talk 17:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I didn't check French Goo(g)le. I'd be happy with a major rewrite to make the article factual and NPOV. Budgiekiller 10:51, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive labs[edit]

Seems very much like an advertisement and is the user's only edits. Pretty sure it has relatively no encyclopedic value and it struck me that things like this should be deleted pronto to send the message that we aren't an advertising service. gren グレン 08:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy, advertising. Proto t c 08:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising is not a WP:CSD!--Doc (?) 12:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising, largely speculation as to what they may do in future. An NPOV article might be possible but this isn't it. Dlyons493 Talk 12:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted, language has been amended to remove speculative elementNeotrantor  16 October
  • Reaction time, is a stub with some limited information. This needs updating and will endeavor to expand and within community guidelines Neotrantor
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and create a redirect to Wiktionary. DES (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coreligionist[edit]

Substub that can never be more than a dictionary definition, and we all know it should therefore live at Wiktionary. Which it does. So this should be deleted. Proto t c 08:29, 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 delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cranus[edit]

Apparent vanity page featuring a NN cartoon character. I considered doing a speedy delete, but decided to AFD instead on the off chance someone knows otherwise. 23skidoo 16:50, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crap Os[edit]

Non-notable Flash "parody" of an operating system. Out of the 2110 Google hits, only one of the first 20 seems to reference this. Tempshill 04:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: The author of the "Crap Os" parody wrote this Wikipedia article, so it's also deletable for Wikipedia:Vanity. Tempshill 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above. Lets raise the bar and enter some truly good articles here. "We make the internet not suck."--Gaff 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, nn. Proto t c 08:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crap CLW 13:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In ten years, who will care?
  • Delete per nomDanlovejoy 22:21, 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. DES (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crud (exclamation)[edit]

  • Delete, already in Minced Oath. Citizen Premier 04:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, will never be more than a dictdef. Don't transwiki, though, since it's currently not even that. —Cryptic (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Cryptic, delete. Uncle G 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't see it in Minced Oath; furthermore, some exclamations there have links to articles. Fg2 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC) And, a redirect to Minced Oath would be useful, since people who type "crud" into the search box and don't find it are unlikely to type "minced oath" next. Fg2 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but I don't know that anyone is going to add the "(exclamation)" at the end while they're typing. Maybe one could write a tidbit on the Crud disambiguation page to direct people to Minced Oath. In any case, delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:48, 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 Keep. Physchim62 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyan Garamonde[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. Delete the GameFAQs-style material and it'll work, per A Man in Black. BrianSmithson 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. Full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:45, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lamey[edit]

Not a real author. I'd send it to speedy under A7 but it asserts notability, even though it's not true. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 131 Google results for "Daniel Lamey" and no results on front page result to the author cited see [14]. Severe notability and verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Gaff talk 00:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nonsense. --JJay 01:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saskkatchewan, Nova England, Great Canada" wha? Unless I woke up in an alternate dimension this morning, that qualifies as patent nonsense. Speedy this crap. Bearcat 07:47, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Flameblade[edit]

Appears to be contravene WP:NOR, WP:V. Character in fantasy tale, Ludiyan Fantasy, by one Danny Rolfe, google turns up one hit to geocities page, possibly the author's. See also this AFD. I think this may have been written by the author. Too obscure to satisfy WP:V, appears to have elements of original research. Delete. encephalon 20:31, 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 11 Keep, 7 Merge Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Day of Atonement, Christian and Feast of Tabernacles, Christian[edit]

These two articles are forks of Jewish holidays to allow for the fact that members of the Church of God observe these as well. They lack individual merits, and I'd recommend a merge on this one. JFW | T@lk 03:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge both as per Jfdwolff. -- Kjkolb 04:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both. --Briangotts (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if possible, otherwise Merge. What fiction will they think of next? IZAK 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have separate entries for the various Jewish and Christian holidays, why not entries for this particular denomination? I suppose it could be merged if it can be done so intelligently. Sensor (talk · contribs)
  • Merge for reasons stated by JFW. Joaquin Murietta 05:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but carefully - retaining the Jewish flavour of the Articles Fintor 06:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if even the nominator thought the two should be merged, why on earth waste time putting them through Articles for Deletion? Be bold, and just carry out the merge. Proto t c 08:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to get some consensus before making such a move. Call it a flame retardant. I also thought there could be some delete votes. JFW | T@lk 09:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they are. We should not discriminate against this church or its holidays. Other holidays have their own articles. There is no reason to delete or merge them. 10:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by Logophile (talk · contribs) )
  • Keep - No valid reason to delete or merge. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Jfdwolff. They could also be merged with Church of God. The titles themselves are POV - they should have been Day of Atonement (Church of God) etc. Jayjg (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, how are they POV? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Jayjg is referring to the fact that these holidays are not actually recognized by the vast majority of Christians, so the titles are misleading. These appear to be primarily celebrated by the Church of God and possibly a few other small evangelical sects.--Isotope23 17:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, by the one who originated the articles. The reason that the term Christian was added to both titles is that the articles could not be entered without a unique identifier. The term Day of Atonement takes one to a disambiguation page which lists Yom Kippur and Day of Atonement, Islam. The term Feast of Tabernacles is redirected to Sukkot. I was simply trying to enter a unique article with new information, no POV was intended by title choice. COGwriter 13:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the two articles contain substantial information not included in the Yom Kippur and Sukkot articles, the latter article doesn't mention Christian observation of the holiday at all. The two articles can definitely stand alone, and are separate topics from the Jewish holidays, so should not be merged.--Kewp (t) 14:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actual information. Trollderella 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As many have stated above, there is a substantial portion of this religious group's celebration that is distinct from the traditional Jewish celebrations on the same day.--eleuthero 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Day of Atonement, Christian into Church of God... barring this (and one could make a case for not doing this because there are other small Christian sects that apparently recognize this day), I will do a rewrite the article if the consensus is Keep to make it clear that the day of atonement is not generally recognized by Protestant and Catholic versions of Christianity as a holy day. Current version is misleading because most Christians do not recognize or celebrate this day.--Isotope23 17:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edit above to clarify...Feast of Tabernacles, Christian is a clear keep as it is clearly stated in the article that most Christians don't celebrate it. Though I would advocate a Move to Feast of Tabernacles (Church of God) unless someone knows of other significant sects of Christianity that celebrate this day--Isotope23 17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Interesting, notable, why delete? Roodog2k (Hello there!) 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Day of Atonement (Church of God), per Jayjg's wise counsel.  BD2412 talk 01:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Now I did submit this article, and would like to state that because some Church of God groups do not keep this, that it should not be merged into the Church of God page. I thought that part of the purpose of Wikipedia was to have information on many topics. The Christian COG view of this time is different than that of the Jews. The article points this out. It is better not merged with the Jewish Sukkot as that article is entirely about the Jewish view, while my article explains how a minority group of Christians view it. FWIW, years ago the Feast of Tabernacles was the largest annual worldwide convention of its type in the world. I will be leaving to observe the Feast of Tabernacles myself early Sunday morning and would be happy to address any specifics. Thank you for your consideration. COGwriter 03:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
* I already said Keep, but wish to add an important point. The monthly/bimonthly magazines of the three largest COGs (UCG's Good News, PCG's Philadelphia Trumpet, and LCG's Tomorow's World) go to over 1,000,000 subscribers each issue. Between them, these three groups are on over 300 television stations in the US, plus have radio and international impact (there are also many other similar groups on tv and radio, etc. that observe these days). There are people who would like to know more about the days that these and other groups observe. And the impact of these groups is not so obscure as to be irrelevant. But I do not object to the titles like Day of Atonement (Church of God) with the comment in it that some non-Church of God groups keep it. COGwriter 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the articles are distinct and informative. There is no reason to delete or merge them, as suppression of valid information is against the intent of Wikipedia. Mjas 03:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons:
  1. The articles in question are about holidays that have a distinctly Christian interpretation of each Jewish holiday. If you read each article carefully, it is clear that these are not simply "Jewish holidays" to those Christians that keep them. Rather, they are holidays which have a meaning that is wholly different from how most Jews would understand them. (How many Jews would equate the sacrificial offerings with Jesus or the Feast of Tabernacles with the second coming of Christ?)
  2. If we are to merge all religious holidays that have different (or overlapping) interpretations, then the Pentecost article should be merged with Shavuot – two holidays that have the same origin, but totally different interpretations depending on whether you’re Christian or Jewish. The same would be true for Passover. To merge Jewish and Christian holidays onto the same article would ultimately fail to adequately describe either religion's perspective of those holidays.
  3. A number of Christian groups have origins separate from the Church of God that also celebrate these holidays. For example, consider the Assemblies of Yahweh and Jews for Jesus, and other forms of Messianic Judaism.
  4. In addition, some mainstream Christians choose to observe such holidays as the Feast of Tabernacles – even if they do not consider it Biblically required for Christians today. For evidence, see related articles on the ICEF and Christian Broadcasting Network websites.
For all of the above reasons, I believe both articles should be kept separate and distinct. Stephenw77 04:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per JFW. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can't "bagsie" the holidays, man, and it would be wrong to redirect a Christian holiday to a Jewish one that does not give proper account of the Christian observance. Move to Jay's recommendation if it's true that only the one church celebrates them. Grace Note 05:05, 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 Keep. Physchim62 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De Hoef[edit]

This article is in Dutch, and the subject matter is too insignificant to warrant an entry in the English wikipedia (it's a hamlet of less than 1000 inhabitants). DocendoDiscimus 10:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I'll finish the translation and remove the copyvio photograph (some time later today after work). Just because it's a small Dutch village doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the English Wikipedia. That would be systematic bias. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once translated, as per Mgm CLW 12:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete... if it gets translated before the end of the AfD I will certainly change my vote to Keep.--Isotope23 13:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Ganymead 14:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, factual and verifiable. Trollderella 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will vote provisional keep providing that a translation is done. If not then delete. Capitalistroadster 16:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, real place. Kappa 18:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. as above. --Gaff talk 23:44, 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 21:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dept of Plant Sciences, University of Reading[edit]

The Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Reading is a not particularly outstanding institute at an average university. The article says that the institute exists, and I'm not sure that much more can be said about it. Universities have a legitimate place in Wikipedia; institutes ought to be listed only when they are genuinely famous in their own right (the Cavendish Laboratory would be a good example). Pilatus 10:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 21:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Djnazz[edit]

He was supposedly a "pioneer dj's and producer for eletronic music in Brazil." However, he has no all music entry, only 31 unique Google results and it's unclear if he released any albums. -- Kjkolb 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to be a real person, but I cannot verify that he meets WP:MUSIC and no contention is made to that effect in the article. Delete unless someone cites sources.--Isotope23 16:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting, not much discussion on this so far, more input? Rx StrangeLove 05:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not meeting WP:music. A Brazilian producer but doesn't seem to be particular notable see [15]. The Allyunion list of AfD nominations is on the first page of results which is not a good sign. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, a third of my nominations need relisting from lack of participation. -- Kjkolb 11:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --JJay 21:05, 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. DES (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon whiskers[edit]

This is an unsourced article on an obscure fantasy topic. Pilatus 10:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wave the magic wand and make it disappear. Dottore So 11:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. The article does not even tell which fantasy work or setting the information is from. --Allen3 talk 21:16, 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dreptul la timp[edit]

Apparently non-notable poem in a foreign language. Nom&vote delete Gaff 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's by Nichita Stănescu. Not much point in merging a single foreign-language poem though. Dlyons493 Talk 07:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the Wikimedia projects (is it Wikisource?) welcomes poems if they're not copyrighted. If this poem is copyrighted, as it well might be (given the age of the poet), that's another matter. So there are a few reasonable alternatives: (1) transfer to another Wikimedia project; (2) rewrite this article to discuss the poem in an encyclopedic way; (3) delete if copyright violation. Fg2 01:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio Romania is a Berne Convention signatory and has been since before Nichita Stănescu was born. Physchim62 16:01, 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dummary[edit]

No clear reason found - presume the first keep vote contains the reason for nomination.

  • Keep This had been marked as a speedy delete but I disagree because I found some Google references ([16], [17]) StephenJMuir 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both references are typos. "S" is beside "D" on the keyboard.
  • Delete neologism. (If it's not a neologism, then delete dicdef.) — mendel ☎ 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd vote to redirect, but we don't have a Summary article. Pburka 04:24, 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. This seems to be an attack page, and, at best, is a hoax. Speedied as A1 and A6, and borderline G3. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Sauer[edit]

ATTENTION!
DO NOT DELETE the comments and/or votes of other users or you could be banned and blocked from Wikipedia.

my son richard was taken by ed, in fact in the letter ed sent the police in 1992 he said our sons named, we support this article being online, and hope it will help to lead to the capture of ed sauer. signed, 

      Richard Wallace Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.37.46 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 October 2005


My brother william was taken by Ed Sauer, its good to see that someone finally had the guts to publicly post an article about him. Now i hope we can find him, and hopefully find my brother alive signed 

     Patrick McAnonomys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.37.46 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 14 October 2005

Please do not delete this post. My dear husband Tom was the police officer who was bitten and killed by this terrible monster of a man. I wish for everyone to know about what this terrible person did so that they can keep an eye out for him. I would like to ask for anyone who possesses a picture of the man to post it so people can look out for him. Please do it for my dear husband Tom. 

       Karen B. -Unsigned comment by  63.13.156.22, who also deleted the first two votes below.
  • Delete as hoax. This person is supposedly a cannibal as well as a paedophile so would have plenty of Google results if he were real. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly vandalism --JJay 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vandalism. Also, I think that due to the vandalism to the AfD, it might be pertanant to look into speedying this (G3, A1, A6, A7) (I also edited this AfD as 140.103.191.204) --CastAStone 02:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the guy is real -- and I bet he's not -- we're an encyclopedia, not a webhost. Pleading that the article will help catch him is not a way to save the page. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smells like a hoax or attack page. If the latter, delete it speedily. Pburka 04:14, 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 Keep. Physchim62 16:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Roni Figaro[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. Delete the GameFAQs-style material and it'll work, per A Man in Black. BrianSmithson 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ryan. Couldn't you just made a single vote and linked all articles to that? --Kizor 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Dangerous-Boy 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:10, 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 (no conensus, 2 delete, 2 keep from registed users with edits.) Wikibofh 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo Bob[edit]

Non-notable flash animation. Also, please note this article is the recreation of a page previously deleted through a AfD. --202.156.6.62 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.62 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be dying already; in ten years, will anyone care? Denni☯ 03:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd say speedy for recreation if the last vote wasn't a year ago. -- Kjkolb 08:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a wiki on this. Why would this be deleted? It's just people's opinion that no one likes this.-65.65.202.3 02:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Note: This user's first edit.)[reply]
  • Keep. This flash series was big back in 2001, though it has gone stagnant since.--Dwedit 06:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Search for "Eskimo Bob" on Google yields 13,400 hits. Alexa traffic ranking is 462,662 but has been as high as 17,284. 24.224.138.240 12:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The new wiki (URL on the article) has been having a lot of activity in the past few days. It has been said that the eskimobob.com site will be back up this Thursday. Eskimo Bob is still popular, although less than when it started back in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.14.179 (talk • contribs) 20:04, October 19, 2005
  • Keep Nominated by a troll.--Spigot the Bear 18:23, 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 keep. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 01:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Linux[edit]

  • Delete - This article fails the Company inclusion guidelines. The company retails Linux. There has been some discussion on the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, however, it came to no conclusion. There are a number of other companies with similar notability. I believe that if this shop retailed lingerie or books it would be deleted, retailing computer software, even Linux, should not be treated differently. The article is an advertisement currently freely hosted by Wikipedia. User:AYArktos | Talk 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a single retail outlet or a chain? Delete if former, keep if latter. Not perfectly clear in entry. Marskell 21:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep based on below. Why don't you expand this Chug to note the on-line importance/success? Marskell 21:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I don't have any stats or references to back it up. I *know* it is, but that doesn't really help. I'm working on it :P -- Chuq 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an online retailer as well as a shop front. So far as the online side of it goes, it also happens to be one of the largest in Australia - I can only think of two (this and LSL) off the top of my head. (If someone wants to write about one of the countries biggest lingerie or bookstore, such as Bras N Things or Angus & Robertson, that would probably be less likely to be nominated for deletion as they have a bigger market than an online Linux store.) -- Chuq 21:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - although no published statistics are available, I believe it would pass Company inclusion guideline #4. -- Chuq 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guideline 4 can be met by almost any corner shop for a suitably narrow definition of "market area". Bras N Things and Angus & Robertson are both chains/franchises, not a single store. The chain may be notable, but an individual shopfront is not. The best argument I've heard for notability for this one is if it can really be a profitable business running on online store selling freely-downloadable software! --Scott Davis Talk 00:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Revoked delete vote based on expansion --Scott Davis Talk 02:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Market area" in this case is "Australia" - wide enough? This isn't just a single corner shop somewhere - it is an online retailer - therefore its market/scope is as wide as a nationwide chain. -- Chuq 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Answering since you felt ignored below) Their website claims their market area is the entire western Pacific including China and Japan. If I want a book about Debian Linux (for example), I'll shop at a bookshop. If I want Debian Linux, I go to debian.org and download it (or install online). If the article is extended to show how they can make a profit from selling things online that people can just as easily download for free, then I might change my vote. --Scott Davis Talk 13:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • People who don't have broadband; people who have low quotas; people who like the fancy pressed CDs; people who want to try several different distros and would rather receive the CDs overnight instead of wait for a week to download them all; people who want to purchase one of ELX's custom people who want a distro AND a book, or other merchandise in one order; people who want to buy hardware guaranteed to work with Linux; but seeing as they have been in business for 6 years, I don't think discussing their business model is really relevant - it obviously works fine for them and several others. -- Chuq 00:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no indication/proof that this meets Guideline 4. It definatley doesnt meet any other guideline. Agnte 11:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment (moved from above because it appear people didn't see it) - this is VERY informal research, but of 7 out of 12 10 out of 16 people who replied to my post on an Australian Linux forum said Everything Linux was the first Linux retailer they thought of. It shows high notability in it's target market (Australian Linux users) Very informal, but 62.5% is a lot higher than 20%. -- Chuq 02:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. at least the article does not mention anything encyclopaedic in it. Xtra 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article still needs much improving. Xtra 06:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chug, prove it. Marskell 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have commented/replied to many of the objections here, but been ignored. I don't want to repeat myself, but I will. 62.5% of Australian Linux users, when asked to name a Linux online retailer, name Everything Linux as the first and sometimes only one they know. Yes, its a very small sample size, but 62.5% is significant, qualifies (for me) as the biggest in the country, and implies that the store definitely passes company inclusion guideline #4. It's a bit hard to prove what is common knowledge in a certain circle, but no-one has gone out of their way to prove in the past. This might help: [18] -- Chuq 12:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is the only linux retailer I know of within Australia. I have bought from them several times. The article should be expanded instead of being removed, it definatelty has a large percentage of the market within it's niche. --Martyman-(talk) 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: significant Australian Linux shop. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an ad, looks like an ad. Nothing noteworthy in the article. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:21, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Baptist Church of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho[edit]

Quite apart from the question of whether individual churches are notable, this isn't an encyclopedia article about a church, it's advertising for a church. Delete Angr/tɔk tə mi 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete adcopy. I'd say rewrite, but ultimately this appears to be a non-notable church.--Isotope23 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert, NN enough to re-write Youngamerican 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. Xoloz 15:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad --TimPope 10:08, 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 Speedy delete as requested by the author and aparatenly sole contributor to the article. DES (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fugg[edit]

    • The problem is that this is a neologism: a made up word. With no evidence that this is a word that is widely used by a significant number of people, there is no way this can stay on wikipedia. I suggest you add it to urbandictionary.com if you have not already. That's the place for made up terms.Delete--Isotope23 13:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

neologism Cnwb 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It lists his death as 2012, obviously it's a fake. --Hoovernj 01:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might make a good Wiktionary entry; however, the factual misleading puts everything into question. --Malecasta 03:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page.--Dakota 03:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Vanity, junk, fake, NN, and just plain garbage. - Sensor 05:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef at best 13:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A certain fug decends over me when I read this article. Ganymead 14:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, 2012 ... that dunce ... well no one in his family has ever lived past 38, so he is sure 2012 is his last year, oh well ... not a reason to delete him, I dont think. But what do I know?
  • I wish you would'nt delete this page ... I know slid3r, and I know he's not trying to be vain. He really did invent the term. Oh well, people seem angry over it, I dont know why.
  • Comment - Sorry, but "fugg" was not invented in 1999 by this man. Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead" coined the term, and it was written in the 50s I believe. A punk group named themselves the "Fuggs" after this. This article is thus inaccurate. --MacRusgail 20:51, 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. Physchim62 16:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gau (Final Fantasy VI)[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game, little to no backstory. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. BrianSmithson 17:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. Full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. Expand. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Dangerous-Boy 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:46, 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 speedy DELETE (empty) . -Doc (?) 23:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GE McKinsey Matrix[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 21:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Monkshood[edit]

clear vanity and totally non-notable band; Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising and gaining notarity Gator1 23:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 23:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--according to their website, they've never played any shows outside of Oklahoma City, and almost certainly fail WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 18:32, 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 Keep. Physchim62 16:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gogo (Final Fantasy)[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game and a hidden boss in another, and has little backstory. Most of the article is original research about his identity. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however. If you ask me, all of these deletion nominations were made in very bad faith.

The original research could be removed. The information about Adlai Stevenson is pretty humorous, though, and it well known among the Final Fantasy VI community.

PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-known in a community is not an argument to keep an article. There ARE standards on what deserves an article, you fail to realize. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I realize perfectly. And I never stated that the information was the reason to keep the article. What I said was the original research should be removed, but it's still pretty funny.PiccoloNamek 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The research is well known, indeed, worth of being kept in the Talk page for anyone who does not really know about FF6 to access quick and easily. -- ReyBrujo 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a list of Final Fantasy VI characters. I liked FFVI too, but this article is bloated with nonsense; a theory that Gogo is based on Adlai Stevenson, of all things? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. BrianSmithson 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. I believe that full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from two Notable games. Verifiable. Remove any remianing OR. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can sorta almost see an argument to delete this and Umaro... but even if I thought that, Gogo's appearance in two games makes the article more relevant anyway. --HeroicJay 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but I think it's important to note that the only reason Final Fantasy V's Gogo has an article is because the one from FF6 does. Taken as a seperate entity, an optional boss from relatively obscure console role-playing game would have been submitted (and probably passed) AfD ages ago. – Seancdaug 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's also the fact that I voted "Keep" on all the more important characters, and it wouldn't make much sense to delete just those two and keep all the others, IMHO. I'm not entirely opposed to a merge, but we have individual character pages on lots of other one-game-appearance characters, including most recent Final Fantasy characters. --HeroicJay 03:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:50, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sun Adepts Refuge[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Its whole content seems to have been copied from somewhere else. --202.156.6.61 03:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's from here, although the author may have posted it himself. Even if it isn't a copyvio, it isn't notable. -- Kjkolb 04:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am Ryu Gaia and I wrote the part of the article that I said that I wrote. The part about the website is the history of the website from the website and we had the permission to write a page about the site from Kemosabi, the site's webmaster. There are external links leading to the site itself and the About page. The page will continue to be edited by the members of GSAR, and the page was made in GSAR's memory (the site is closing). (unsigned comments by User:68.56.245.245)
  • Delete, non-notable fan site. gren グレン 08:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable fansite.--Isotope23 13:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 14:32, 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.  Denelson83  19:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory[edit]

I can't seem to find anything on this theory or its supposed creators Peter Vincent and Dr Chris Wilcox. Looks to me like a creation of User:Lithium412. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment on what grounds do you associate this article with dr wilcox
  • Delete as non-verifiable theory. I can't find any references to the theory or the creators. Possibly just created by another user and then just vandalized by User:Lithium412, who has been fairly active today.--Isotope23 18:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 18:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like a lame attempt at string theory. Google knows naught. linas 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obscure pseudoscience. ManoaChild 02:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google, arXiv, citeBase yield no hits on alleged theory, which apparently was never published if it ever existed. Article on Chris Wilcox gives link to CERN, but this website does not contain the cited document allegedly by this Wilcox, and I could not find a Wilcox at CERN via Google, although someone at CERN with access to a staff directory might have better luck (if Wilcox exists, it seems he might be some kind of computer or media relations staffer, but even if he exists, there is a question whether the alleged theory might not be another case of someone trying to attribute a made-up "theory" to a real and innocent person). ---CH (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable to say the least.Voice of All @|E|Merit 16:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. can't find anything on this at all. ---Mpatel (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am a technician at CERN and have personally verified the authenticity of Professor Vincent and indeed Dr Wilcox, who is a personal friend. I can catagorically state that gravitational oscillating plane theory is GENUINE, although the article here is not the most accurate. I have to say, by even questioning the validity of work by these distingushed scientists you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. If you have any questions, please contact me at the usual address. --Svenson 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - if you really are, why is your spelling so dreadful? --MacRusgail 22:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I also have my doubts that "Svenson" works at this renound facility, as he calls it on his user page. Like most of the apparent hoaxes I've seen, this reads like something written by a mischievous junior high school student, so I hope this is just a phase which "Svenson" is rapidly outgrowing.---CH (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's that smell? Dirty socks?--Isotope23 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been wondering what might be the motivation for 86.9.0.194, 82.14.4.161, Dr uri krossavich, Dr greenson, Lithium412. Their contribs (actually, I think the same youngster in Hampshire might be behind all these edits) suggest that this is some kind of Dungeon's and Dragons game (various named 'planes' seem to play a role in that game). I tried to suggest to "krossavich" that he try using some of the spoof Wikipedias rather than the real one for this kind of game.---CH (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment firstly, we are not from hampshire and i resent the implication and secondly, i do not play or even know anything about dungeons and dragonsDr uri krossavich 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Although any literature on this subject never received mainstream publication i can assure you it is a viable theory. I work at fermilab as part of a team searching for the graviton particle and i can say that, allthough it is not a theory i personaly subscribe to, it is one that can yet be ruled out.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. android79 02:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hatboro-Horsham High School Intern Experience[edit]

This page is intended as the course page for the intern program at a certain high school. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. Pilatus 15:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete post haste. WP:NOT advertising, &c. — RJH 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no value on placing it in Wikipedia. *drew 16:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, someone got the wrong idea of what wikipedia is. 18:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. High schools may or may not be encyclopedic according to various users - I myself don't mind as long as the articles are of reasonable quality. However, intern programs at said high schools definitely are not notable enough to warrant articles in their own right. I would suggest that we put a couple of lines in the Hatboro-Horsham High School page but it seems we don't have one yet. Capitalistroadster 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A4... this is basically an attempt to create a message board on wikipedia.--Isotope23 19:35, 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 speedy DELETED by User:MacGyverMagic -Doc (?) 07:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HCSC[edit]

Vanity? Poorly written and nn. nom&vote delete. Gaff 05:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also think this must be a spam article. --Nlu 06:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as no content, beyond contact info. It was blanked by the same IP that created it (presumable by the company themselves). I think they just realized they made a mistake, and wish to remove it. We should oblige them quickly --rob 06:32, 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 merge to Dell Inspiron. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiron 6000[edit]

Nominate for user Fsdfs since he didn't finish process. gren グレン 08:54, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Dell Inspiron. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiron 9300[edit]

Nominate for user Fsdfs since he didn't finish process. gren グレン 08:54, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Doc (?) 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey Critics Opinions[edit]

POV fork. --fvw* 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is sufficient notabilty concerning Merkeys detractors to warrant a separate page with their opinions.
  • Speedy Delete As page creation vandalism. Analysis of the wording on the page (i.e. "as part of their propoganda campaign to stop him from releasing a superior operating system and defeating Linux in the Open Source NOS Market" and the posting IP leads me to believe this page was created by Merkey to goad his detractors as well as create a thinly veiled attack page against them. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I call "skunk" when I smell one.--Isotope23 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted - this is not an article - it is a message board inviting critics to discuss and debate. It is thus an 'article which consists only of attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title.' By its nature it is disruptive of Wikipedia.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) then delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Waruch[edit]

This article concerns a witness in the court martial of Edward L. Richmond (Pfc). The text of the article and external links are similar to the Richmond article. The witness is not notable other than in the contextof the Richmond case, so perhaps this article could be merged with Edward L. Richmond (Pfc), or, if not, deleted.Joaquin Murietta 15:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep -- In the interests of full disclosure -- I started the Jeffrey Waruch article. In the interests of full disclosure, User:Joaquin Murietta filed a copyright violation on another article, that I consider to be in bogus and in bad faith, and an attempt to game the wikipedia rules. I called them on it in a comment filed just a few minutes before JM filed this {AfD}. If JM believed in full disclosure they would have acknowledged this themselves.
Granted, the two articles contain common elements. But Waruch, IMO, merited an article when we learned he too was under inquiry.
JM suggests we should merge these articles when Waruch's inquiry is still in progress? The results of Waruch's inquiry will have nothing to do with Richmond. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper. There is no downside to keeping the two articles distinct.
JM says in their explanation that the article should be merged, or if not deleted. So, why didn't they apply the {mergeto} tag instead of the {AfD} tag? This is, in my opinion, a misuse of {AfD}.
  • Merge & Delete Waruch doesn't pass my criteria for notability. In 5 years, will anyone remember who this guy is? Merge anything that isn't already stated into the Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) article.--Isotope23 17:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Richmond case is notable; this subject is not, and his role in the case should be basically a sentence in the Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) article. MCB 22:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The information should be recorded somewhere, but would be best in th Edward L. Richmond (Pfc) article. The results of Waruch's own investigation may affect his own notability however. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:39, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bishop[edit]

A nn wrestser for a nn wrestling company Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:17, 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.

(NOTE: A new article for a different John Robert Powers was created by me. - Ted Wilkes 18:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete all three Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Powers[edit]

(NOTE: A new article for a different John Robert Powers was created by me. - Ted Wilkes 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

nom&vote delete Apparently non-notable guitar player for non-notable band. Google search for: "guitar player" "John Robert Powers" "marina del rey" revealed no hits User:Daniel Lotspeich 17:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I add D300 and Dick Dieselberg to this nomination. Their notability appears to be exactly the same as this person's. (Oh, and Delete. No Google hits or evidence of notability). DJ Clayworth 17:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. delete all three. do they all need there own separate AFD or can an administrator take 'em all down?--User:Daniel Lotspeich 17:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entry was incorrectly transcluded on the AfD page for the 13th of October, so I am listing it here today. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 03:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three - nn CLW 13:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom. Ganymead 16:15, 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 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kapuso[edit]

This is a candidate for a merge, except the entire contents are already contained in GMA Network, so I think it can be deleted

  • Delete - Neier 04:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Gaff 05:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, leave a redirect. Proto t c 08:32, 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 REDIRECTED to Kashmir by Dmcdevit. Robert 23:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KASHMIR[edit]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! I am not trying to force on everyone. THe problem is I am very much educated on Kashmir & most of you guys dont understand that the person who wrote the original Kashmir page, leaves out alot of facts (which is why u see it is disputed) and makes it long and boring. My version has the same info he has, and then some, and its also shorter and easier to understand. So thats why I made this new page and I dont think its right to delete this.

ARYAN818 05:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Version of Kashmir article that user who created article keeps trying to force on others; is reverted every single time. See ARYAN818's contributions) RattleMan 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fork. --fvw* 22:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fork. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mis-capitalizing (like all-caps) is a possible search term, so I've been bold and simply redirected it to Kashmir. Dmcdevit·t 01:00, 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. Physchim62 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King's College (Taunton)[edit]

Does not assert notability. KeithD (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, move and expand. Notable, there aren't that many private boarding schools left and I would guess it has a pretty long history. the wub "?!" 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and movemoved to King's College (Taunton). From what I've seen this is an interesting institution, with interesting alumni[19]. My only fault with the school is its unoriginal name. --rob 23:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was a popular guy in those parts. — mendel ☎ 23:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:schools/Arguments#Keep and feel glad that we can write honest articles about schools without having to assert any special notability. Kappa 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it does assert notability it is an article about a school can we stop this yet Yuckfoo 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this obviously notable school.--Nicodemus75 00:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article presents absolutely no evidence of notability. Surely this school must have some sort of history. Denni☯ 03:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you wanted to try to change the school precedent (albeit weak) that has formed, this wasn't the article to try it with. (Me, I deal with schools on a case-by-case basis.) --Jacquelyn Marie 03:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to change any sort of precedent. At the time of nomination the article solely said "Kings College, Taunton is a private boarding school of 400-450 pupils." As such, it made no claims of notability at all. I wouldn't have nominated the article in its current form. KeithD (talk) 08:50, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as virtually empty page. Robert 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kounamouta[edit]

Fancruft. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an extremely short article with little or no context. Pburka 04:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy (as above). --Celestianpower hablamé 10:51, 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kushehnooney[edit]

NN band. Does not meet requirements per WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:48, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Schneider[edit]

Unverified and debatably less than notable claim to fame. Limited evidence by google search. By this nom&vote delete which could obviously change if article expanded and truly notable criteria detailed. Daniel Lotspeich 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • setting my personal thoughts about the DBQ aside (EVIL!!!), her name and a little info about Document Based Questions should be Merged into Advanced Placement Program --CastAStone 04:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, and then Delete this after merging. --CastAStone 04:25, 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 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Bias on Wikipedia[edit]

too short not enough sources not not notable

  • delete self-referntial, unsourced. DES (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete wikipedia article commenting on wikipedia internal affairs? seems unlikely for an encyclopedia article. Better discussed in some other forum, like village pump.--Gaff talk 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Reads like a discussion.-Dakota 00:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be better served in the Wikipedia talk namespace. --Metropolitan90 00:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either unverifiable or original research. JYolkowski // talk 00:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to one of the areas listed above. Then Delete.--CastAStone 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-referential & unverifiable discussion, belongs in the Wikipedia namespace if anywhere. --Bjarki 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I should of speedied it when I first saw it, oh well. --Fire Star 01:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's good that you didn't. I think it's probably not a good idea to speedy criticism of Wikipedia itself, especially if it isn't a clear CSD. JYolkowski // talk 03:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason, perhaps for the edification of the original contributor, or perhaps boredom, I was inspired to make it an exercise in POVectomy. I didn't feel right speedying it at the time, even if I couldn't put my finger on why. --Fire Star 03:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Village Pump. Merge with Criticism of Wikipedia -- but only if verifiable. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Xoloz 15:47, 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 (will note that I put the two that were in this list in a "magic clubs" category) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic clubs[edit]

Pointless list. Not notable/worthy of a list. Incomplete and very unlikely that list could grow into anything useful. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Krash 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of notable magic clubs. Kappa 04:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed they should. And that's why there is Google. Lists that I've encountered here on Wikipedia have corresponding articles. There is no Magic club article. And, to me, it seems this list was created as a link farm for Magic Club of Vienna, itself a dubious article. I'm not opposed to Category:Magic clubs, but I don't think anything less than about 10 entries is worthy of a list. And this isn't a topic that's going to have that kind of growth very quickly. -- Krash 13:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google is not an excuse for wikipedia not to organize itself properly. Kappa 18:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not reason not to have a Magic Clubs subcategory of Magic. The Land 09:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you don't think people should know what country the Magic Circle is based in before they click on the link? Kappa 11:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you cannot add the country to the magic article but you can put it in this one? - Andre Engels 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I oppose making this a category, which would not not show this information, I have no objection to merging, which would retain it. Kappa 18:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. A list of two can be moved into magic (illusion) or in some other article where it fits. - Andre Engels 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into magic (illusion) article per Andre Engels. Will probably get more views of the information there.--Isotope23 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful list. Trollderella 16:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of two items is not a list. This is why categories were invented. Denni☯ 02:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Gamaliel 18:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete. -Sean Curtin 07:02, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of magic venues[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Krash 01:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable Dlyons493 Talk 03:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think such a list could be relevant if the article was about "Magic Gaming," or something expansive like that, and the list illustrated / flushed out the phenomena described in the main entry. Somehow it has to report about secondary scholarship and not be just a definition or list. --Malecasta 03:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krash --Rogerd 04:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ugh. - Sensor 05:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising CLW 13:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto Joaquin Murietta 15:41, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of plant science research institutions[edit]

This is a list of plant science departments. I see two problems with this: there are no clear criteria for inclusion (the John Innes Centre is well known, the one at Reading is just a random university department), and plant biology is just another subject studied at universities round the globe. I don't really see the point of having n Lists of Departments of $SUBJECT in Wikipedia. Pilatus 10:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree. But I don't think this is a reason for deletion, as there exist numerous other lists with more or less random contents.Please see the talk page. bjelleklang 10:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, refine criteria as necessary. Kappa 12:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless a list's quality and positive contributions are too obvious for words, there's a burden of proof on it required to earn a place here that this one just hasn't met. The Literate Engineer 03:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 18:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really don't see how this isn't turning into a list of colleges that teach botany (ie all of them). -R. fiend 18:52, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with titles that do not appear in the lyrics[edit]

The list was interesting in the past, but now it has grown to the extent where it may become unmaintainable/unsalvageable.

  • Delete as overgrown list that's potentially unmaintainable. --SuperDude 04:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics --rob 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has been decided each time it's been nominated. -- Jake 07:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What sort of craziness says that while there weren't many songs on this list it was worth having in Wikipedia, but now that it has been extended it is no longer encyclopaedic? Grutness...wha? 10:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not incredibly long. Kappa 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there seems to be no unifying theme in this massive list. Having the title in the lyrics seems as common as not, and the fact that two songs do not have their title in their lyrics establishes no artistic common thread between them. I think any grouping based on lyrical content should establish such a common thread. That said, this article seems to me a collection of random facts, about as useful as List of songs where the letter E does not appear in the lyrics. flowersofnight 20:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmanageable. --MacRusgail 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: original research, impossible to practically verifiy, unmaintainable, and likely to grow without bounds. --Carnildo 22:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This list may be of some minor convenience at some point sometime. Youngamerican 02:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (How is this considered original research? It's taking things that are easy-to-verify and putting them all in one place). If this list gets unmanageable, a simple change would be to make an alphabetized page for each band (ie: Bands starting with A, Starting with B etc). Also, my vote goes as per Trollderella and Kappa and Jake Nelson above. --Tedzsee 03:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trollderella, or at least categorize. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gamaliel 18:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable listcruft, especially since the criteria for inclusion is hardly distinctive, as flowersofnight notes above. MCB 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above.  Grue  17:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, for reasons already stated, yadda yadda yadda. But possibly consolidate to only include songs released as singles. --Fallout boy 03:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly pointless. I can't even believe how many people vote to keep it, and I'm a bit tired of hearing the same old retort "Oh it's been useful to me in the past!". How how how? You are side-stepping the issue. It is not enough to state the list IS useful. HOW is it useful? And besides its trivial content, the list is already growing beyond acceptable proportion. Furthermore I agree with everything Flowersofnight said. Please people, offer a reasonable defense --Steerpike 15:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Somebody obviously went to to a lot of work to create this or they copied from someone that did a lot of work. Why should we take that away from them?--Ewok Slayer 02:14, 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. Robert 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of professional sports post-season droughts[edit]

Found this by clicking the random page, and what a treat it was to behold. Four items (two of them redlinks) do not a list make. Miniscule, ugly, pointless. And would anyone ever type this into the search page? They would not. If anything, it's a category. Delete. Proto t c 08:52, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 16:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however. PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...You're not assuming good faith because you don't like that I AfD'd your favorite articles. It is impossible to get these deleted - for the sole reason that you people will never allow the deletions to happen. Hibana is trying to vote to keep, and he showed interest in getting the AfDs removed. Seriously, if you edit on Wikipedia, you respect the rules and guidelines. It is a matter of notability. You're expected to give me one good reason why this article is notable enough to deserve his own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list of characters; this is list-entry length, once you remove the overly-specific game info. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cruft. Denni☯ 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. Delete the GameFAQs-style material and it'll work, per A Man in Black. BrianSmithson 16:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree on list-entry length. The overly specific game info has its uses too. --Kizor 09:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Dangerous-Boy 06:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:44, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ludiyan Fantasy[edit]

WP:NOR, WP:V. I'm unable to find sources for this. Google of Ludiyan fantasy and Danny Rolfe turns up one website—a geocities page, possibly the author's. Subject appears to be too obscure to meet WP:V. Delete. encephalon 20:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; neither author nor book nor series known to Amazon.com. MCB 23:06, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Cameron[edit]

Advertising/vanity article; non-notable, local artist. Article perhaps created by artist's agent/gallery (also listed above for deletion: see Au Courant Interior Design Consultants. Search on Google for "Lulu Cameron" reveals fewer than 10 relevant hits returned Humansdorpie 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Humansdorpie 15:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn advert/vanity. Reads like a verbatim copy of an "artist's statement". MCB 22:57, 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 21:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Movement of the Moth[edit]

NN band --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertation of notability. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could have been a Speedy. --JJay 01:21, 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 Keep. Physchim62 16:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mog (Final Fantasy VI)[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game, and has little backstory. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 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 keep. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molag Amur[edit]

not real, nonsenese and not notable Gator1 20:41, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mosbi[edit]

Self-admitted non notable band. 202.156.6.61 03:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete They? It's one guy who calls himself a band, making this eligible for speedy deletion under A7--CastAStone 04:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not speedy A7. There is a claim of three members. Three non notable members. But three. --rob 05:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was only one listed when I posted. Now that it's three, I agree.--CastAStone 22:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • At first I thought there was just one name, but then I noticed that it was because multiple lines wrapped onto a single line. --rob 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article was created by the same anon who vandalized New Order, --rob 05:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. *drew 06:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dont delete- I'm sorry that i did that to new order's section, i have learned my lesson. I use this site for all my school work and it is one of my bookmarks. New order is one of my favorite bands (Fav songs: Regret, Temptation, True Faith, Here to Stay). Mosbi is a real band. We have three members. We lost our bassist, his mom wont let him be in our band because he is in some cover band and busy with other things. But we are real, i am sorry for doing that to the new order page.
    • Hi, I'm sorry, but we just don't have web pages for up and coming bands. Even real bands, and even good bands who aren't yet know. It's not personal, in any way. I suggest looking to MySpace.com or other free web space providers. Also, you probably don't even want an article here, since once made, its not your property, and anybody else can edit it. You're better off getting your own free web space, elsewhere, which is your own (and you can even upload music to), which you can't do here. --rob 02:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok, go ahead and delete it. I just thought it would be cool to be on wikipedia.
  • Delete per above. --JJay 01:28, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Hands[edit]

Unencyclopaedic, in my view. Lack of notability, no explanation for why this article is named "Mr Hands", no context on the person's real name, links to somewhat inappropriate material on bestiality, etc. Close to nonsense. Delete. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, no reason given for deletion. --SPUI (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, reason given now. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 01:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic - verging on nonsense--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk --JAranda | watz sup 01:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7, G3. I tried that already, but it was reverted.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- (drini's page|☎) 01:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no persuasive reason given to delete. Kappa 02:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unencyclopediac", "Verging on nonsense","Junk", and "Lack of notability" all seem fairly persausive to me...--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If "unencyclopedic" is a description of the tone, it can be fixed. If it describes the topic, I disagree. I can understand it, and so could any reader, so I don't think it verges on nonsense. "Junk" is hardly an attempt at persuasion. "Lack of notability" seems like a funny criterion to apply to this hopefully unique event. Kappa 02:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    One guy dying because he had sex with a horse is "encyclopediac"?--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Unfortunately it is part of the sum of human knowledge, as confirmed by the newspaper report. Kappa 04:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Well, it seems we won't agree on this, so I'll just let consensus decide. Everybody wins! Except for the subject of this artice...:)--Sean Jelly Baby? 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I'm sure bestiality videos are of interest to some folks, individual files are not an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit and keep Maybe it belongs among "web phenomena" or something similar. It's not exactly "encyclopedia-worthy", but it should be here to explain what it is to people so that they don't need to see the video. It's being called "the next goatse", so it's likely that it will be showing up in forums for years to come, there may as well be some background information on it somewhere legitimate so that people who are curious don't need to actually search for it on google and read every forum post filled with people saying "that's gross". The article doesn't have a lot of information in it, because it's fairly self-explanitory. It's a gross video of a sexual act resulting in death that is being posted around the internet as "shock humor". Not sure how to correctly sign my name here, I apologize. As for why it is different than the other floating porn videos, this one resulted in a death, which is at least newsworthy - original poster - 02:43:48 14 October 2005— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.233.102 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is a very persuasive case to keep the article. If it is a phenomena, and it is talked about, then it IS noteworthy, and it SHOULD be referenced. However, I question the merit of "self-explanitory." The article should explain a secondary consensus and/or debate on the phenomena and provide references. Clearly, however, it is not original research, so I think this has potential to be saved. --Malecasta 04:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic. badly written article. Bwithh 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 03:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vanity? Yes, he wants everyone to know that he has sex with horses, from beyond the grave. ;-) -- Kjkolb 04:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything worthwhile into Zoophilia. Do not leave a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Revise The entry refuses to define itself. Perhaps a reporting on the sources listed and a merge with other material. There should be some definition of "Mr Hands," and some reporting on the secondary scholarship of issue. If no scholarship, then some attempt should be made to distinguish it from original research. If it's something that exists and is commented on by other people, then it should say what exists, what those comments are, THEN link to that commentary as reference. --Malecasta 04:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic at all and should be removed forthwith, respectfully disagreeing with Kappa's assertion that this can in any way be considered something worthy of inclusion based on an assertion of 'the sum of human knowledge.' Equine knowledge maybe... Dottore So 08:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think wikipedia users should go without access to the fact that there is a recorded instance of a man dying from this kind of act? Kappa 11:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The act itself and the consequences could be a paragraph in Zoophilia without any real effort. This man is not notable on his own. Karmafist 16:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either into Zoophilia or put a mention in Enumclaw, Washington where we already have some links about this case - maybe that section should be expanded with a little write-up of the case? flowersofnight 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. The term "Mr Hands" has no real relation to the incident in Enumclaw, Washington, in so much as I can determine. If someone wants to take the time to add the factual information of the Enumclaw, Washington incident into the Zoophilia based on news reports (I don't see anything salvageable in this article) that would be a useful endeavor. Keeping this article under this title though doesn't serve any purpose as the term Mr Hands appears to be neologistic in renference to the information in the article (barring the naming of the mpg file).--Isotope23 13:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The name "Mr. Hands" is the name the person in the video used online. He has a yahoo profile under the name "mrhands60" (warning: which contains adult material). --angrysquirrel 18:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I don't suggest redirecting to zoophilia because someone might want to do an article sometime on the Mr. Bill character. 23skidoo 13:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is, Weak Delete if it ever rises above badvertising cruft. A man having sex with a horse might be notable as fluff on the local evening news, but random foolishness in general is not notable, and i'm inclined to believe that's what this is.Karmafist 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Ganymead 16:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. --Carnildo 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, nn, vanity?--Gaff talk 23:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rather hope that the ghosts of zoophiliac farmers aren't editing Wikipedia :).--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe so, but "Attack of the Zombie Hillbilly Horse-Boinking Encyclopedia Editors from Hell" would make a great horror movie title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advert and POV article about nn occurrence. MCB 20:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not worth salvaging. any useful material about this incident can be added more easily elsewhere without using this article Mozzerati 20:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Zoophilia floortap 8:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Byzantine Party[edit]

tagged as a speedy, but not nonsense -Doc (?) 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax, no such party (political? NGO?), zero Google for "New Byzantine Party". Perhaps if we had more information I'd reconsider.--inksT 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had tagged it because zero google = party of one, i.e. hoax. Check the editor's posts- all vandalism and hoaxes going back months. IP blocking is in order JJay 00:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hoax is not a speedy deletion criteria (pl read WP:CSD) - patent nonsense should not need google to identify. Delete this - but it is not a speedy. --Doc (?) 01:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read it. Changed to delete. What about the other article from the same user that i just tagged? JJay 01:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another nonsense article. --Hoovernj 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice. Pure japery. - Sensor 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is a party, its a nn. one.--Gaff 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous! Ganymead 14:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax, no Google listings and Byzantium did not have a theocracy. Jtmichcock 01:15, 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 Merge — 1 vote merge, 1 vote keep/merge, 1 vote delete/merge, 1 vote delete — article to be made redirect to Austin, Minnesota#Churches, and any content merged into that article. --Gareth Hughes 13:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Vineyard Christian Fellowship[edit]

Church with no notability asserted (or any other information for that matter). --fvw* 21:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with Austin, Minnesota, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 00:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best redirect to Austin. 16 individual pages for churches in Austin, Minn were posted today, all of which are already listed on the Austin page. Each consists of essentially one line, no claim of notability and link to website. Should every Christ Episcopal Church in the US (161,000 hits on google) have its own page on the wiki? --JJay 03:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and all the other churches listed at Austin, Minnesota#Churches into Austin, Minnesota. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:20, 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. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NightFang[edit]

Apparently a fake comic book. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article claims that a prequel movie is in the works and to be released in 2007. If that was even remotely notable (or even in existence), Googling for the "NightFang" (or "Night Fang") and the creator's name(s) should return hits. I ain't gettin' none -- smells of a hoax to me. -- Captain Disdain 09:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Allen3 talk 21:49, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nintencats[edit]

This is not a real game. This is clearly shown by the External Links, one of which is to a uncyclopedia article, while the other is to an interview which said that Nintendogs began as a cat simulator. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No hard evidence this game will ever appear.StephenJMuir 21:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing but rumors and speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not detect the sweet smell of truth, only the stench of rumors. My nose is disappointed. It wants to delete. -- Captain Disdain 03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The message from the page's history says "(1000+ google hits. and is NOT personal speculation.)". There was more than 1000 google hits for this. Since it is not personal speculation. Some common fan speculation that exceeds 1000 google hits I believe is allowed on Wikipedia. Agreed? --SuperDude 06:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems highly unlikely that Nintendo would make such a spin-off considering Nintendogs' commercial success. Maxistheman 11:43, 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 Wikibofh 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"nut ball"[edit]

  • Delete NN Idiocy StephenJMuir 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete surely. Marskell 21:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to BJAODN, unless the game exists. It's not a speedy, because it countains information. Gerrit CUTEDH 21:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seriously, How about an article on donkey baseball?

  • Delete Why is this even still around?Masterhatch 10:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or completely rewrite. The article contains an enormous amount of point of view and needless biographical information. A google search on the term is nonclusive; however, I have heard reference to and seen the game played under various names. If the game is sufficiently notable, eliminate the personal information and consider moving it to wiktionary (as it does reference a term).

Cool3 03:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite. The game does exist (I once played a variation of the game called 'Bruise the Jewels'), but the article contains a great deal of POV and it's not really very... suitable. As is, anyway.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 due to lack of consensus. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OGA (Office Golf Association)[edit]

Supposed professional association for non-notable "sport". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the single copy/paste used to create the article and the complete lack of wikification, I'm wondering if the text may have been copied from This Book. Anyone with the book able to verify? GeeJo (t) (c) 21:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure I understand "complete lack of wikification." This was converted from a document that I have written and have the rights to publish. Having not read or heard of the aforementioned book, I can reasonably say that information contained within was obtained independently. King Redbeard 21:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is so poorly written it could not have been copied from a book Wwwdude 21:41, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Earthquake Casualties List[edit]

I'm not quite sure where this belongs. It should be somewhere, yes, but not on Wikipedia. Any suggestions? DS 13:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete. You're talking about a list that could in theory exceed 40,000 names. Unmaintainable. Also the current wording seems to suggest POV and that the creator is trying to start some sort of victim blog which violates WP:NOT. 23skidoo 13:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:NOT a memorial. --Last Malthusian 14:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per 23skidoo. *drew 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Carnildo 22:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully Delete. There is also a practical reason to delete: we simply cannot verify the names in this list, and the risk of error is high. An official/Ngo website would be a good place for such a list. --Vsion 23:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a memorial, and there is an incredible verifiability problem also. Xoloz 15:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the seriousness of the topic makes it more than listcruft, unlike List of red-haired British surgeons or whatever, it clearly cannot be a Wikipedia article. MCB 22:01, 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 Wikibofh 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pentoon[edit]

nn website. no alexa.[20] 60.234.144.135 04:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Agree w nom. vote delete.--Gaff 05:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked on Google, and after the web page's own site, unrelated links come up. Using the author's name, what comes up are web forums where he made postings. No proof of notability. - Andre Engels 13:40, 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 00:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vincent[edit]

Delete non-verifiable bio... probable hoax. Tied to Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory, which is also up for AfD as unverifiable.--Isotope23 18:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it suddenly becomes verifiable. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, google knows nothing about Peter Vincent and gravity. There does seem to be one Peter Vincent who is a physicist at CERN, but can't imagine this is the same person. linas 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per linas. There is one Peter Vincent who got a PhD from Albany Medical College — totally unrelated. Punkmorten 22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per linas. -- SCZenz 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per linas. Also, author of this article, User:Lithium412 has been reported for vandalizing pages.---CH (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I am a technician at CERN and have personally verified the authenticity of Professor Vincent and indeed Dr Wilcox, who is a personal friend. I can catagorically state that gravitational oscillating plane theory is GENUINE, although the article here is not the most accurate. I have to say, by even questioning the validity of work by these distingushed scientists you should all be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. If you have any questions, please contact me at the usual address. --Svenson 22:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no-one should assume Svenson is an unbiased contributor. See [contribs]. ---CH (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this page was vandalised by User:86.9.0.194 who changed the vote of another version. I have therefore rolled back to the 09:19, 18 October 2005 Hillman version. chowells 20:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, related to hoaxer (several ips) mentioned at [21] -- (drini's page|☎) 22:51, 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, apparently. (Someone didn't close the AFD properly.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piconjo[edit]

Delete, nn-bio. Titoxd(?!?) 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio per nom. --Gaff 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable. android79 17:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and Protect this has been deleted a dozen times already after a previous VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, in fact, not a substantially similar recreation of the old article. After the anonymous author started vandalizing VfU with requests to undelete the original article (and threats to continue vandalizing until he got what he wanted), I blocked him and made him a deal: to be unblocked, he was to rescind the threat, write a NPOV treatment of the subject and abide by the community's consensus if it ended up at AfD again, and also not commit any more vandalism. To my knowledge, he has concentrated only on improving this article and has not messed with VfU or anything else. (I can't remember which IP he was editing from at the time; I'll find diffs if requested.) This should be allowed to remain on AfD for a full discussion. android79 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See User talk:206.176.119.180 for the deal. Vandalism warnings from today don't appear to be for this editor. android79 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the background. I agree that the articles aren't the same, though I'd still consider this reasonable speedy-fodder as A7 nn-bio. Doesn't hurt to let it wait out its time here though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't identical, so I decided it might be better for it to be AFD'd than CSD'd. Titoxd(?!?) 17:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Doc (?) 22:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. He's evil is very real. -- Nobody man

  • Delete as non-notable, despite his (tragic) death. I would consider this a borderline speedy candidate under other circumstances. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's good that the editor is now trying to contribute according to Wikipedia rules, but unfortunate that a tragic death does not necessarily confer notability. If he signed up for an account, would userfication be acceptable? -- Kjkolb 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably not, since (as the subject is dead) this is presumably someone else entirely. It wouldn't really be user-page info, and would probably be seen as an end-run against well-established AfD consensus. Still, that doesn't mean there's nowhere in the world this could be put... I wonder if Comixpedia takes articles about Flash animators. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A Man in Black. Plus, the article seems hoaxish and unverifiable, in that one part says "Evidence points out that he might not even be a person, but maybe a shared account", but another flatly lists a date and cause of death. Hmmmph. MCB 23:02, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachubacca[edit]

Pokécruft. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:40, 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 02:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp master prodigies[edit]

Vanity Baszoetekouw 22:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom StephenJMuir 12:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn gameclancruft. MCB 23:15, 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 Wikibofh 00:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel advertising[edit]

Page appears to be spam; the "phenomenon" described is very new, and not apparently widespread, popular, or particularly notable. Haeleth 16:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Merge with The Million Dollar Homepage - that survived its AfD, and that site at least has gained enough press coverage to be notable. This article, however, adds nothing to that, and as written is still not suitable for Wikipedia. Haeleth 11:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the URL and see how unpopular this is. Google Search The kid who started this has also sold in just under 2 months $400,000 in pixel advertising. Plus the multitude of other sites popping up all the time and making their own waves too. Alexa ranks for several of the pixel ad sites are under 10,000.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Produce Hurler[edit]

  • Delete No google web or news hits. StephenJMuir 20:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense --JJay 21:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. jni 08:15, 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. Robert 00:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punknet.com[edit]

Ad. The fact they've been spamming links to their site to articles doesn't help much either. --fvw* 22:25, 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' Wikibofh 00:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red guitar[edit]

Standard band vanity. Long on fulsome praise for the band, short of any sign of notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Standard elitist, pedantic dribble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.52.36 (talk • contribs) , who authored the article.


Isn't it rather to one's credit to be hated by satan himself? Nice work, Red Guitar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.24.179.29 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete as bandity. And puh-lease, do you think Satan has time to edit on Wikipedia? Being lord of darkness is so time-consuming. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Did you mean bandit? Suggestions: bandit Banditti banditry bandits bandied bandy bandit's bandits' banality bankit pandit banded Band Aid Band-Aid

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reddogg[edit]

nn wrestler for the nnXtreme Wrestling Entertainment which I placed in AFD as well Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:27, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redelture[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 nn-bio. DS 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinaldo Avila da Silva[edit]

NN: being the boyfriend of a euro-politician his only claim to fame Flapdragon 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. It's a nn-bio, and I've tagged it as such. Punkmorten 22:39, 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. Physchim62 16:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relm Arrowny[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote on these, but I'm finding they have largely the same structure: a paragraph or two that would make a great list entry, then a page of very specific game info and quotations, all of which aren't really Wikipedia material. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. BrianSmithson 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. Full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think he might be refering to the Mass nomination. Mass AfD nomination is frowned upon. (This issue came up when people were mass nominating things like schools and Pokémon characters.) However, I do not think there is any policy against it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I was making a mistaken assumption. I thought that, like most other templates, putting the template in the {{ }} would leave it on the page like that, rather than replacing it with the corresponding code. Seems that template is an exception. Never mind my complaint. My vote stands though. --HeroicJay 03:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:48, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Golla[edit]

There was a annon user that kept saying that this person don't exist. I dont know if its true but Im placing this is AFD just in case. No Vote --JAranda | watz sup 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I can't find him on Google, Encyclopedia Britannica (listed as a reference) or the Lectures.org site. -- Kjkolb 01:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax - the link given on the page is to something else entirely. Dlyons493 Talk 03:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb --Rogerd 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kjkolb CLW 13:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kjkolb. Ganymead 16:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly as per Kjkolb. Hall Monitor 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kjkolb--Gaff talk 23:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kjkolb--Gaff talk 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kjkolb. Smit 21:41, 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. Physchim62 16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RPGe (translation group)[edit]

Notability not established. -- 202.156.6.62 22:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.62 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]

  • Keep (and clean up). This group is notable for releasing a full translation of Final Fantasy V, years before Squaresoft got round to it. There are plenty of fan translation groups that would not be appropriate material for Wikipedia articles, but this is one of the few that is. Haeleth 23:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, but mention the RPGe translation project in Final Fantasy V, because it's how most English-speaking gamers first played FFV. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are are still a very well known fan-translation group 6 years after disbanding. Worth keeping. Bngrybt 22:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and expand/clean up). Very few groups have had as much influence on the popularisation of fan translations as RPGe has. Iriliane 03:20, 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. Physchim62 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sabin René Figaro[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however. PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. Delete the GameFAQs-style material and it'll work, per A Man in Black. BrianSmithson 17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Right, I'm switching into cut-and-paste answers. --Kizor 09:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Dangerous-Boy 06:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:44, 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 and mark for cleanup. Also, move to new title Sam Smith (writer). Rob Church Talk | FAHD 03:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Smith poet novelist editor[edit]

Bad vanity article by self-admitted "struggling novelist". If his books appear on amazon at all, they seem to rank well over 2 million, or be available only as downloads. The article is largely a list of ISBNs, many from a small press he runs. Highly promotional. R. fiend 16:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Smith has some notability in the English poetry world and is widely published: the collections mentioned are not necessarily "vanity press" publishers (e.g. University of Salzburg has also published poets of the stature of James Kirkup). However, the article is dreadful - desperately needs renaming and rewriting Humansdorpie 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and non-notable. I assume vanity based on the username of the creator. I will refrain from rude inferences based on the quality of the article.--Isotope23 17:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Coolgamer 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in any case, we can't keep it at that name. If kept, it should be moved to Sam Smith (novelist) or somesuch. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:51, 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 Keep (2 keep, 1 delete) Wikibofh 00:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhills Publishing Company[edit]

Page is mostly cut-and-paste from their website; the bits that aren't (mainly at beginning) aren't comprehensible enough to be edited into something useful. I would have cut the plagiarised/copied stuff and made this a stub. However, I'm not convinced that there's enough of note about this publisher to warrant inclusion as a stub. Fourohfour 14:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: User:211.245.243.189 (contributor) and User:Mirmo! (originator) are almost certainly the same person. Fourohfour 15:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I carried out a major cleanup involving removing all of the copyvio text and the "See also" section which consisted entirely of redlinks. I also dispute the assertion that "Sandhills Publishing Company is the most visited website on the Internet today". I don't have enough interest to verify notability, so no opinion on the AfD. --GraemeL (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, company seems notable enough but GraemeL was too kind in his editing and I used a somewhat larger axe. -- DS1953 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; this is a very well-known publishing company with major titles; I think the stub can be expanded back into a comprehensive article without resorting to copyvio. I'll put it on my list to look in on. MCB 22:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

211.245.243.189 has removed the AfD tags; I have reinstated them. It's hard to tell if this user is malicious, egotistical, incompetent, or just doesn't understand English very well, as they've never responded via talk pages. Fourohfour 10:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe Mirmo has a malicious intent, I think he keeps removing tags because he doesn't properly understand English. --ApolloBoy 04:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think Mirmo/211.245.243.189 is outright malicious either. However, I believe that he/she/it knows enough English to at least respond. If she is confident enough to make contributions to Wikipedia, she knows enough to respond. I don't expect perfect English. I DO expect them to try. Fourohfour 11:17, 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 01:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semper Libera[edit]

Looks like Original research to me JJay 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research. The topic is a bunch of alleged Internet fraudsters allegedly run by Jim Robertson. There are 20000 Google hits but they go all over the place including an aria from La Traviata and a medieval song of the same name. The topic is marginal at best as far as notability goes and the article needs a lot of work. Capitalistroadster 19:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination- OR and V. --JJay 20:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT Delete No article concerning "Semper Libera" in Wikipedia's database. Victims will soon put up legal actions against Robertion and some of paid check copies as evidence were already collected by one of the representative of the victims. It's worth retaining this article and update when required.
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a place to warn people about frauds. If the fraud was notable - several major media mentions, perhaps it would be included. Also, there hasn't yet been a conviction, fine or settlement, so we have nothing but allegations, even though they may be true. I suggest contacting the FTC and/or starting a website on a website hosting service. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 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 Keep Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Setzer Gabbiani[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's alot of these online, but this has got to be the most informative I've seen. Don't get rid of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.151.208 (talk • contribs) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however.PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. BrianSmithson 17:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. Full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:47, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow (Final Fantasy VI)[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however. PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of FFVI characters. It seems like this article is one half description of the character and one half specific game info (how to save or abandon Shadow, etc.) This could be condensed down into a list entry of one or two paragraphs without great difficulty or loss of information. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is factual and provides the reader with lots of information. Your argument for him only "appearing in one game" does not stand up to the fact that there are plenty of articles on wikipedia about characters that appear in one film or music artists that make one album. He has cult status.
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. BrianSmithson 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ryan. Full-fledged articles work better here than a list would. --Kizor 10:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very notable character in FF6. Decisions regarding him affect the game's ending. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:46, 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. Thanks for reverting anons where necessary. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snickerbilly[edit]

I could find nothing to verify the existence of such a term. gren グレン 03:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is a real term. It is a local thing around this area. I would leave it up. - CentipedeX, 08:30, 14 October 2005 (preceding unsigned comment by 70.19.247.103 (talk · contribs) )

  • Delete neologism. --GraemeL (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom CLW 13:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable neologism.--Isotope23 13:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is a term used around the middlesex Massachusetts county. I'd keep it because it is historic to a farm in Ma that is popular because of this term. (Preceding comment by 71.192.161.220 (talk · contribs), who also removed the three votes to delete by GraemeL, CLW and Isotope23 -- said votes have been restored.)

  • Delete, for reasons stated above. And don't edit the votes of other people; we can see it when you do it. -- Captain Disdain 03:34, 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sroda Slaska[edit]

advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn.--Alhutch 00:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use full words as many newbies know not of the meaning of "nn". --Celestianpower hablamé 10:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertisment, pure and simple. --Celestianpower hablamé 10:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious linkspam, even after I removed the external link. Speedy, and no prejudice against a later rewrite on the city in Poland. —Cryptic (talk) 13:11, 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth camoflauge[edit]

Misspelled title and content is reproduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Ziggurat 01:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Do not turn into a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CLW 13:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ganymead 15:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete per above. And how. --Gaff talk 23:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to optical camouflage which is a real object, inspired by or inspiring the stealth camouflage item in MGS. "Weak" redir b/c of misspelling. Marblespire 05:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete before any redirect. no need to keep history if material isn't used Mozzerati 20:12, 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strago Magus[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:32, 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strayed[edit]

tagged for speedy but IMO does not qualify. non-notable accodign to the articel text itself, and smells of vanity. Delete. DES (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete First person vanity. Pburka 04:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity article about nn flash animation. MCB 23:18, 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 and redirect to Gogeta. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Saiyan 4 Gojita[edit]

This is a duplicate article of Gogeta and also it is very messy. Super Saiyan Plough 04:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I WAS the one who added a lot of information to the page of "Gogeta" though some of them have been removed by "kids". I am only doing this for the benefit of the western world who seems to think the information they have is more accurate than from a Japanese source for A-ni-me. For those who doesn't like the page of "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita" can goto "Gogeta" page instead. Super Saiyan 4 Gojita is not a duplication of Gogeta, it concentrates on SSJ 4 Gojita only. This is a special character in the Dragonball GT series and deserves an entire page on its own. "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita" page provides more information on the character, not to mention it is the most authentic.


For user SS Plough: Just visit page "Gogeta" Do not bother with page "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita". My page provides authentic information from JAPANESE ORIGINALS with pictures, not western dubbed rubbish. If this is a web page, it would be more nicely laid out, but most people on here are interested in information, not decoration, much like crap such as Macromedia's Flash. Page Gogeta is also a messy page, information is not in any order or structure.

For people who are interested in general information on the character Gogeta may visit page Gogeta. For more detailed information on Super Saiyan 4 Gojita (the most powerful character in Dragonball Z/ GT universe, this is mentioned in the Japanese original version), they should visit "Super Saiyan 4 Gogita".

  • Delete and redirect as per Saberwyn. Gogeta in any form only appears in one movie and maybe one or two GT episodes if I recall correctly. We don't need 2 pages about him. Besides, SSJ4 Gogeta is the same person as Gogeta, just using a special ability. flowersofnight 13:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would want to vote for merge with Gogeta and redirect. However, the author does not want to merge. In my opinion, this means he is withdrawing his decision to put this under GNU/FDL. Although technically we would have the right to do this, since the text is indeed under GNU/FDL, I think the honorable thing would be to delete. - Andre Engels 13:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It IS NOT the same person. SSJ4 is an important and most powerful character in the whole Dragonball universe (please refer to Japanese web sites or ask Mr. Toriyama himself as he has approved the story). Page Gogeta talks mostly about SSJ 2 form of Gogeta and why should that page has importance and priority over "Super Saiyan 4 Gojita"?? What about importing page Gogeta's information into Super Saiyan 4 Gojita??

Erased page will be resubmited over and over again. If you don't like the Gojita page, then read Gogeta page. Do not bother and disturb the Gojita's page.

It is also very interesting to know that all of the sudden there is a group of people supporting the other page. Does the author of page Gogeta have friends or companies forming an alliance? ......or seemingly different people but in fact self-support masqueraded by the same person??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masato (talk • contribs) 08:40, October 14, 2005

  • Delete as per Andre Engels. I'd vote merge as well, but as the creator of the article does not WANT it merged, the only choice left is delete. Masato, note that there aren't pages for SSj1 Goku, SSj2 Goku, SSj3 Goku, etc. They all go under one article page. All versions of Gogeta/Gojita should do the same, because they are NOT seperate characters. This seems a clear case of you wanting to have your own page rather than doing the much more logical AND Wikipedia-rules friendly action of cleaning up Gogeta rather than complaining about it. Also, please sign your comments. Thank you. Nezu Chiza 16:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Masato: That is NOT the point. I do not disturb other's work and do not care if there are pages on different characters for any series. I don't have to read them and do not concern about erasing other's work. I am only concerned with information. You read what you like and stick with the other page if you like. Don't dictate what others do!

The author has decided to erase the gojita page, not to waste time on the western world. Also, like we use real IP address !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.64.72 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 October 2005

  • Merge and redirect. Otherwise we face the potential of having each version of every character (if I recall correctly, some have > 3 different versions) have a page of their own. Oberiko 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Oberiko has it in one. If every character in every fictional work had an article for each of their forms, the amount of Wikipdia articles would more than quadruple, and sooo many would be duplicate articles. Even Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader have to share. Plough talk to me 00:56, 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 Wikibofh 00:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SWIM[edit]

This just looks like an attempt to justify a link to another site. The terminology already exists in List of internet slang. - Neier 15:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Neier 15:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the creator I apologize. It was not created with the intent of linking to totse, I just put down what I knew. I was previously unaware that there was any knowledge of this term, so I created the article. Possibly some the info can be placed elsewhere? Possibly wikitionary? --AGruntsJaggon 05:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used very commonly on the Totse.com forums and has been for many years. It is also used in some of the articles. I dont know about other sites though. Do they accept internet slang? EDIT: Didnt see it was already submitted. --AGruntsJaggon 23:39, 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 nn-bio. DS 12:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tærje Kristian Alm[edit]

More of that good ol' vanity. Claims to fame: playing World of Warcraft. Wish it could be speedied, but I guess it doesn't quite meet the criteria. -- Captain Disdain 09:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 09:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously --Irishpunktom\talk 09:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I see no claim of notability. Look at this from the page that explains speedies for vanity articles:

    For instance, "John Doe is good at chess" does not assert significance. "John Doe has won the UK National Chess Trophy in 1994" does. If people argue that winning that trophy is not significant enough, they should take the matter to AfD, as the assertion prohibits speedy deletion.

    Remove chess and insert World of Warcraft and it seems to me we have a plain vanity article. Qaz (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Qaz. --Last Malthusian 11:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete please don't tell me anybody thinks that "kicks ass" is a genuine claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete; please. Dottore So 11:38, 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 Merge — 3 votes merge, 1 vote keep/merge, 2 votes delete, 1 vote keep — I shall merge all suitable content into Prague#Transportation and delete the article (there is no point keeping it as a redirect). --Gareth Hughes 13:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxidrivers in Prague[edit]

Non-notable, non-encylopaedic, no hard facts, nothing useful to say on the subject, WP not a manual for tourists Flapdragon 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Been watching this one for a fair while to see if it would (could) attain any value, but although subsequent edits have cleaned up the abysmal English to a large extent, it still has very little to offer. Reads like a rant combined with a manual ("Advice given to tourists") and despite the very specific title, documents nothing much more specific than a dislike of dishonest taxi-drivers, which are doubtless to be found anywhere there are tourists. No hard facts, figures or names, just unsubstantiated allegations. Very unencyclopaedic and, though I'm sorry to say it and don't want to offend a hardworking contributor, essentially worthless. Flapdragon 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, lots of verifiable stuff in here. Could maybe use a better title though. JYolkowski // talk 00:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as informative link, or merge with Prague listing. Jtmichcock 01:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flapdragon Denni☯ 03:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't very NPOV, but maybe there are a few interesting modicums that could be merged to Prague. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Prague after it's trimmed down to a neutral paragraph. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Prague, or a new Transport in Prague article, or maybe even weak keep if more material can be found. Generally, I have deletionist tendencies, but I actually found this article interesting. Also, to me this article doesn't come across to me as a rant or as a tourist manual - the "Advice given to tourists" section provides reference material. There probably isn't enough here to justify a full article and should be pruned, but I do think some things here are worth keeping somewhere. --A bit iffy 11:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per Kjkolb. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:40, 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 (12 keep, 3 delete, 5 merge). Robert 00:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Branford[edit]

Delete. Only ever appeared in one game. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:So? All of the other Final Fantasy characters have articles, and there's too much information to include in the main Final Fantasy VI article. There is nothing wrong with making separate articles for the main characters. Articles for NPCs are another issue however. We also have to consider the fact that the Tina is effectively the main character. That is, as much of a main character as a game like FFVI could have.

PiccoloNamek 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Quill --Ryan Delaney talk 01:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in a list of FFVI characters. I promised myself I wouldn't mass-vote, but there's no point to keeping that promise now; they're all basically the same structurally, and after specific game info like lists of spells/attacks/etc. are removed, these are perfect list entries. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly fancruft. Martg76 07:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:BIO near as I can tell ;). Nor can I see any other claim to notability. Marskell 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. Delete the GameFAQs-style material and it'll work, per A Man in Black. BrianSmithson 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Ryan. What's "GameFAQs-style material?" The spell list? --Kizor 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right; the spell list mainly. A good article on Terra could possibly discuss her magical skills holistically, but a mere list of spells is just crufty. BrianSmithson 15:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Dangerous-Boy 06:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character is absolutely pivotal to FF6. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 17:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Along with all other main FF6 characters. PS. LttP, you didn't use the AFD tag properly. --HeroicJay 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep Might as well delete all other NOTABLE video game character articles on Wikipedia, the nominator has taken this completely out of context (without a good enough reason) and this is a completely pointless AfD. Piecraft 21:25, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. It really took you guys two days to AfD this? — JIP | Talk 12:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris (film)[edit]

Hoax. If the plot summary doesn't give this away for you as an obvious joke, this is not in the Internet Movie Database and a Google search for tetris film turns up nothing relevant to an actual Tetris film being in production. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious from article. (notably, this is why we need a speedy way to get rid of articles) novacatz 10:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was created by a Wikipedia administrator. Perhaps he could speedily delete it himself, since it is all his own work. --DannyWilde 12:31, 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 01:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The qwesi[edit]

Vanity, non notable, just 352 hits, groups named there are NN as well (Her Rigormorts: 21 hits, The Studiofix: 209 hits, Volkpenis: 2 hits) -- ReyBrujo 03:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hmm, oddly enough, I actually know the people in these bands. While I wish them well (and I think some of their songs have real potential), they aren't notable yet. Sigh. It's a rough day when my Wikipedian integrity wars with my sense of friendship, but hey, so it goes. Besides, they're better off making music instead of creating articles about themselves. Anville 10:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:20, 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 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Treehouse[edit]

A "private internet message board" with "67 members" does not belong in an encyclopedia. Haeleth 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Haeleth
  • Delete per nomination.--Gaff talk 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the page should remain up. It provides insight into a different aspect of the internet world that many do not know exist. (Anonymous comment made by 148.177.1.213)
Are there any articles based on any other private clubs throughout history listed in Wikipedia? A quick search does in fact show that those type of articles do exist. Haeleth's objection to the article based on his quote of "private internet message board" seems questionable.
While some may wonder about the importance of this entry, to people interested in the cross-section of literacy, technology and social-cultural interactions, the treehouse is quite noteworthy. The phenomenon of people from a wide variety of backgrounds interacting with each other through written language is worthy of further study. Relationships are forged and broken, political sides are taken and defended to the posters' literary ability, wits are sharpened.
How does race, gender, and socio-economic status effect online relationships? Do private social worlds like The Tree House loosen the bonds of society's artificial barriers? Can there be a social world where good looks and money don't count as much as a quick wit and a glib "pen?" The glimpse provided here into the Tree house should be of interest to sociolinguists, and anyone else interested in the dynamics of vastly different people from vastly different backgrounds, voluntarily communing together through the internet. (Anonymous comment made by 67.9.151.177)
  • Comment While your argument is well intentioned, and seems to be well thought out, the fact is that this page doesn't belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is not a directory of every chatroom on the internet. It is not the place to publicize your online community. Will this page mean anything to someone who is not a member of your community? I doubt it. If you want to put it up somewhere else, that's fine, however it does not belong here.--Alhutch 04:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:V. A board which, according to the article itself, is only accessible to 67 people, is ipso facto non-verifiable. This article is therefore in violation of Wikipedia's official policy, regardless of any other merits it may have. (I do not, incidentally, see that it has other merits. 67.9.151.177 has not described any phenomena not already well-known from Usenet or IRC.) Haeleth 11:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of encyclopedia is:A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

By definition, there is no definition of what should and should not be in an encyclopedia. To delete this article would by all means show that Wikipedia is in fact not an encyclopedia at all, but rather a web site in which a small group decides what can and what cannot be posted. This sounds like a "private" group, much like this "Treehouse" group.

All encyclopedias have a small group of people who decide what goes in or not. You cannot just add something to the Encyclopedia Britannica: does that mean it's not an encyclopedia?
In the case of Wikipedia, the "small group" includes every living human in the world. Anyone is welcome to argue whether something should or should not be included. But we also take into account precedents and policies, which represent the existing consensus of the majority of contributors, and save most people from having to vote on every single article. Several of those policies happen to suggest strongly that this article should be removed. That is why you see all these people voting to remove it. — Haeleth Talk 21:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optionally redirect. Unverifiable and non-notable. Rd232 talk 23:43, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Discounted are Dark Twilkitri (too few edits, all Wikipedia: to this AfD), unsigned keep was actually a comment by an anon, with the bolded keep added by another editor, SuddenPresence (two edits total, both here) whose actual vote is also numerically discounted, Spigot the Bear (too few edits; 20 total, only 6 to Wiki space, turned up in part to lob insults around). The nominator's userpage does have a sockpuppet tag on it, and it is the IP of User:Omgwtflolz, but I don't see why there is a claim of bad-faith, so I'm not discounting. All of which is slightly academic, because I'm calling a no consensus since the numbers are 5d-3k which is below two-thirds, there is nothing compelling to lower the common threshold, and even the numerically discounted comments do have some content to them. -Splashtalk 03:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Whirlpool[edit]

Unencyclopedic. 202.156.6.61 03:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.61 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]
Delete per nom & nn. --Daniel Lotspeich 03:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this less encyclopedic than Zophar's Domain, GameFAQs, Download.com and so on. --Dark Twilkitri 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is a website that has remained online for over five years and is in fact a part of a hobby's history. If you're going to vote this for deletion, why not take down the entries Dark Twilkitri mentioned too? Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Suggesting that this site is like the links above is akin to noting that my 18 ft sailboat is like the QEII. Dottore So 08:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument could be made for GameFAQs, and possibly Download.com - I may have gone a bit overboard - but I struggle to see how you could make it for Zophar's. In any case, according to here (yes, it is marked as proposed and not finalised, but one wonders whether it is really going to change that much), an article is considered important if There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community). I don't think you'll be able to find that Whirlpool isn't at least well-known in the translation romhacking community - more like it is the most well-known in that community. --Dark Twilkitri 10:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, then we should delete some of your own articles. I really don't see why Songs to Grow on for Mother and Child is encyclopedic. The point is, the site is a huge part of a subset of videogaming history, and as such, it deserves an article. It's had nearly 4'500,000 visitors in five years of existance. If that doesn't tell you that the site is important, I really don't know what will do so.Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (change from delete). Anyone got evidence of the impact this site has had? If so I'd keep it. The Land 09:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The site was recently featured in the book 'Gaming Hacks' put out by O'Reilly press.
  • Delete. Extreme non-notability: all of parodius.com combined has an Alexa rank of 850,000, and The Whirlpool gets less than 20% of that traffic. --Carnildo 22:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One would think that Alexa results would tend to be biased towards sites visited by the sort of people prepared to have it on their computer. In any case, it isn't a site with universal appeal, so one wouldn't expect it to have a high Alexa ranking. The site is notable in the translation romhacking community, not the entire population. --Dark Twilkitri 01:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was fan of the video game console emulation community in the late 1990's. I have heard of this site but it is just not notable to have an article in Wikipedia. It is somewhat popular "underground" news site about Japanese video game console ROM images translated into English or some other language. That's just about it. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Although, I know for certain the website's founder sure loves softcore pornography with red hair ladies. --J. Nguyen 03:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if the fan translation scene and zophar's domain are notable enough to have articles, surely the whirlpool is. there is a strong case for arguing that it is the most influential fan translation website currently online. --Bngrybt 10:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Not encyclopedic?" The site itself is an encyclopedia of games translated to English that were never officially released outside of Japan. It's no different than being an encyclopedia of software emulators (Zophar's Domain) or FAQ files (GameFAQs). It is a conrnerstone in the game translation community such that if it disappeared, much of it's content would be hard to reproduce, as many of the originating sites for the files hosted are no longer online (while The Whirlpool has remained so for five years itself). I would also point out there has been an entry for Whirlpool for over two years at everything2.com, another encyclopedia site. An encylopedia site where not every spiteful/disruptive Joe, Dick, or Mary can press a button to change the content.--SuddenPresence 10:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might have an entry there, but it's a comment piece rather than an encyclopedia entry. It was also do you more good if you didn't have a go at Wikipedia when discussing whether an article should be kept here, particularly if it's the first time you've contributed to it. The Land 11:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it was more of a poke at the spiteful/disruptive Joe, Dick, or Mary (who unsuccessfully tried to hide his identity) than wiki itself. Also (coincidentally ?), he nominated nearly all translation-related entries for deletion. I'm just calling what I'm seeing, brother.--SuddenPresence 22:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in an O'Reilly book, significant player in a major subset of the videogaming community, nominated by a fuckwit.--Spigot the Bear 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT regarding the original nomination. This comes from an IP address which is thought to be a proxy. I can't decide whether it is or isn't a sockpuppet and whether or not the nomination is made in good faith. Any views? The Land 13:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no reason to doubt it was made in good faith. --Carnildo 18:35, 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 --Gareth Hughes 13:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Corsu-Fieru[edit]

The article appears to be a hoax, or at best unverifable. Naturenet | Talk 11:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hoax, unverifiable. Does the name mean something like Proud Corsican in Corsican? Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasine Church[edit]

Anyone can create a website regarding their own religious views, or those of a small group with whom they are associated. Does that mean they should have a Wikipedia article? Is there any evidence this "church" has any notability, and is not just a small group that no one has heard of? 137.111.11.69 08:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone can nominate an article for deletion. Does that mean it should not be a Wikipedia article? I also would like to see some evidence for notability, such as membership statistics, but I vote Keep and Clean Up.Logophile 10:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will form base for good article. Qaz (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided at present but probably leaning towards delete unless some verified info is presented. "Thomasine Church" scores just over [100 Google hits] though a goodly number of even that modest sum are just WP and mirrors. The current article seems to avoid mentioning things like congregation or membership statitics. How many members are/were there? Where are the churches located? Has the church been referenced in any theological texts, or even mainstream publications? We need more facts, and if no facts are forthcoming, this should be deleted as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Recently a denomination with only one Google result as proof that it evens exists was kept, and the result was a huge list. We need some church notability guidelines. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No assertion is made that this sect has any number of followers. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promulgation of religious dogma. Delete unless notability established. Pilatus 13:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neutral, factual, verifiable. Trollderella 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't actually seem third-party verifiable from the google hits. Their "temples" are listed here but don't seem to get any hits at all. I'll change to keep if any decent evidence shows up. Kappa 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting find. Not only are the lack of Google hits suspicious, but I found an enormous list of Allentown churches here which makes no mention of this. Also, I'm pretty sure that "photo" is actually a demo shot from a 3D program. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. And yes, that "photo" is computer-generated. --Carnildo 22:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kappa. Xoloz 15:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pilatus, and that only source is church's own website indicates lack of neutrality and verifiability --TimPope 10:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete lack of verifiability Mozzerati 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's interesting to note that a church's reputation or relevance comes down to goggle hits. I also suggest that their needs to be a guidleline to what is to be recognized as to what is not beyond what the big three deem is to be recognized (Christianity/Judaism/Islam). If it were left up to them Wicca would never be listed here either. How about someone contacting this group instead of making assumptions from an artmchair point of view? Comment left by User:AnDruidh, who contributed only to two AfD discussions.
    • There is sufficient evidence that Wicca has a substantial number of followers. The burden of proof that the Thomasine Church has any is with the original editor, and WP:V is clear in that regard. Pilatus 13:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Thomasine Church was listed on the "NACGB" (nacgb.org), "Order of the Grail" page (www.orderofthegrail.org/listing_of_gnostic_churches.htm )as well as some guys blog site (nascentgnosis.blogspot.com). Those are 3rd parties varifying that such an organization does exist. Did you write to them? BTW I am not lost on the "Pilate" and "Pope" names which call for deletion. As someone who follows Druidry I am not surprised that some are calling for this groups deletion. --AnDruidh 00:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as content unverifiable. Note: www.saintthomaschristianchurch.org redirects to www.nasranichurch.org ; one page refers to "Nasrani/Thomasine Churches" [22]. Don't know what to make of that. Rd232 talk 23:38, 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.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nichalp (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 October 2005 --Celestianpower hablamé 21:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thota Santhosh[edit]

I've speedied it. Vanity. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:39, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Wikibofh 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Epileptic Squirrels[edit]

Non-notable band page (72 hits on Google, most self-created I think).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 — This page will be made into a redirect to Mortal Kombat II. --Gareth Hughes 13:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toasty[edit]

Non-notable trivia of the game Mortal Kombat II. -- 202.156.6.62 22:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.62 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]

  • This is perfectly notable. I say toasty! all the time. Many many people I've never met would understand what I was referrencing if I were to shout 'toasty!' in a falsetto voice. There is no reason to delete this page. It doesn't interfere with anything else. It is perfectly legitimate under the strictest interpretation of the guidelines of wikipedia. Also, I had nothing to do with authoring this page, and I found it very informative. I had no idea what the hell the significance of the toasty thing was until I came here. - John Duke, ATL GA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.80.158 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 October 2005 UTC

Merge with Mortal Kombat II. This is notable, but not enough to have an article by it self, especially when the Mortal Kombat II article contains a section dedicated to easter eggs! bjelleklang 23:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mortal Kombat II. A notable catchphrase (as John Duke posted above many people reconise the catchphrase and will know what you are refering to if you say it in the correct voice.), but does not deserve its own article. If it is merged with the Mortal Kombat II article (as it is very relevent there), I suggest the picture is kept. Merge with the Easter Eggs section. Unsigned|88.104.192.163 13:34, 21 October 2005

Merge with Mortal Kombat II. Noteworthy catchphrase, but not notable enough for it's own article. Move to Easter Eggs section as per other users' suggestions. —deanos}{ Ł }{ 12:39, 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 No consensus. I'm going to move to current AfD since one registered vote seems inadequate either way. Wikibofh 23:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Guinan (Vote 1)[edit]

The following discussion was from the October 14th AfD. I've moved it here since there was a single registered vote, and although that is 100% for delete, 1 vote seems inadequate. Now that I'm handling the admin side of things I will Abstain. Wikibofh 23:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN bio. 202.156.6.62 22:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.62 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. Denni☯ 03:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He helped create a an internet cartoon. There's no reason to delete.--65.65.202.3 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Note: This user has only two edits so far, and both edits are in AfD.)[reply]
  • Merge Most of this article and Alan Guinan should be merged with Eskimo Bob. 24.224.138.240 13:02, 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 Wikibofh 17:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado tornado[edit]

nominated for speedy as 'Nonsense, and what little non-nonsense there is already exists under Tornado' but that's not meeting CSD. -Doc (?) 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ridiculous nonsense. --Hoovernj 01:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Revise The article does not conform to neutral reporting standards; however, undoubtably some of the information is "good," and it could probably be rewritten and merged with the existing entry for "Tornado." This may have potential to make a meaninful contribution to the subject. --Malecasta 03:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to target Tornado. There is some good info, in particular some images. Then what to do with Tornado tornado? It should be deleted but it's contributions should not disappear, either. --RichG 04:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. More careful review reveals not much salvagable, photos unsourced, so probably delete.--RichG 11:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete source is dubious. All of the images are unsourced and untagged. --Rogerd 04:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if sources can be confirmed, which I doubt, as much looks plagiarised from uncited sources; otherwise, delete. - Sensor 05:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Rogerd. Some nice photos if they could be sourced. The information is not in a readily usable format and an article on tornadoes exists already.--Gaff 06:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Try to trace photos and see if they are usable. Ganymead 14:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, some useful information. Trollderella 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With Tornado especially the Photos. If photos have no source Delete --JAranda | watz sup 19:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the information here is already in tornado, and I suspect some sections of this article (and especially some of the pictures) are copyvios. --Carnildo 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --Doc (?) 21:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is anything that can be sensibly merged so Delete.
  • Comment: I think I found the source of much of the text and photos, which is [23]. That is an uncopyrighted U.S. government work, so it's not a copyvio, but most of the article is a just a copy-paste from NOAA; I don't see the point in keeping it. Any information of interest could be added to Tornado, but that's already a perfectly good article as is. MCB 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete / copyvio there is some non copyright and original material in there (probably Jung hyuk (talk · contribs) has put in very much good faith work, which it is terrible to lose) but the original edit and material which is still in the article are actually copied from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05. This makes it a copyvio ("Copyright © 2001-05 Columbia University Press."). I have listed it on the appropriate page. However, I vote delete anyway, since such unclearly sourced material is bad even if it turns out that we could get away with keeping it. The original edit should have given the source clearly. Mozzerati 20:01, 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 Speedy Deleted, vandalism. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasonic soldering[edit]

Utter nonsense Flakeloaf 06:45, 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 — 11 votes keep, 5 votes merge, 1 vote keep/merge, 1 vote delete. --Gareth Hughes 22:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umaro[edit]

Delete. A character with no personality, and no backstory. A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep:Slightly less notable than the other characters, but still a playable character just the same.
    • Being a PC is not an argument to keep. I would a complete lack of backstory and personality would take precedence over being playable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate, verifiable and notable. --Oldak Quill 01:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a list of FFVI characters. Little backstory, little personality, and one game appearance makes it a perfect list candidate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you think it needs more backstory, {{sofixit}}. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps my reasoning wasn't clear. Umaro has litttle backstory; there's no way to add any to this article without writing fanfiction. I was voting to merge this with a list, because other than some very specific game info this is an unexpandable stub, in addition to the reasoning in WP:CRUFT and WP:FICT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge to Characters in Final Fantasy VI) per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 01:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oldak. Jtmichcock 01:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This issue came up during the vote for speedy deletion. Just because a character is in one game, does not mean they are not significant enough to have their own article. --ZeWrestler Talk 04:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: based on your comment, did you mean to say "merge" or "delete"? -- Kjkolb 08:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like he meant "keep" to me. He just used somewhat confusing wording (he's saying that it does NOT mean that he is NOT significant enough. Two negatives = positive.) --HeroicJay 03:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Characters of Final Fantasy VI. BrianSmithson 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. -Sean Curtin 07:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Less notable, but since we don't appear to be getting rid of any other characters we need Umaro. --Kizor 09:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge definitely worth keeping as PART of an article --TimPope 10:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Character from a Notable game. Verifiable. Probabily not as notable as the others, but notable never the less. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable major character in a major game. Too big to merge anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- Regardless of how playable he is, he is a character of Final Fantasy VI all the same. Unless you want to go and delete the other characters' pages, I say that there is no reason to delete this one. As for the merge argument, I see no point for it. As was previously said, I say that there is too much good info to not have its own page. The information will still exist and it wouldn't make sense for all but one of the game's characters to get their own pages. Plus, this was the first Wikipedia page I created. Sentimental value, ya know.-Platypus Man | Talk 19:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Every character is on the AfD.
      2. Sentimental value is not an argument to keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure he's not suggesting it is. I think he is just being upfront and recognizing his own biases. Could be wrong, though. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you're right, JiFish. I don't want to see my first page go, but you people obviously don't care about that; you shouldn't. I was just commenting.-Platypus Man | Talk 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only because the list would be incomplete without him. --HeroicJay 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Final Fantasy VI characters – Seancdaug 01:51, 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 Closed (closed in different discussion) Wikibofh 16:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UN Convention on Migrants Rights[edit]

Resolved. See Talk:United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.  BD2412 talk 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete, the rewrite will be left untouched. --Allen3 talk 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas In Space[edit]

clear vanity, non-notable band; Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or to gain notarity Gator1 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 23:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this content; according to this interview, "we have yet to release anything nationally or tour", so they pretty clearly fail WP:MUSIC. However, it appears there is a film by this title (see [24]) and an article on that film would be appropriate. Meelar (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing no other votes after 5 days, I've been bold and rewritten the article to be about the notable movie instead of the non-notable band. I won't close this debate, seeing as I voted in it, but please don't delete the new version of the article. Thanks. Meelar (talk) 19:01, 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 --Allen3 talk 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of Probation[edit]

Bandcruft vanity article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vop and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.o.p. which is the same article three times. CambridgeBayWeather 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a redirect page Violation of probation to this article. CambridgeBayWeather 09:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity may be my favourite sin, but this should still be packed off to /dev/null. Anville 10:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lyrics about fat chicks may be some interesting kind of claim of notability but alas, I vote to delete.Qaz (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. A note to the "Cannabis" brothers... the "brothers" thing has been done.--Isotope23 16:04, 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 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vop[edit]

Bandcruft vanity article. See also Violation of Probation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V.o.p. which is the same article three times. CambridgeBayWeather 08:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete same as above. Anville 10:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lyrics about fat chicks may be some interesting kind of claim of notability but alas, I vote to delete.Qaz (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doppelganger article.--Isotope23 16:21, 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 17:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V.o.p.[edit]

Bandcruft vanity article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vop and Violation of Probation which is the same article three times. CambridgeBayWeather 08:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lyrics about fat chicks may be some interesting kind of claim of notability but alas, I vote to delete. Qaz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heh heh heh. Agreed, they're just not quite notable enough to stay. Anville 10:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doppelganger article.--Isotope23 16:22, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wess'har[edit]

not notable or important and makes no sense Gator1 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks deletable to me, unless there is a precedent for articles on every strange alien race in every sci-fi book ever written??--Gaff talk 23:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The link to Aras is not relevant. Dlyons493 Talk 23:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 00:45, 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 17:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witz[edit]

Non-notable open source chess engine. First release was December 2004 and it is described as still being in the early stages of development, a description applies to a hundred other non-notable chess programs as well. Give it time to be reviewed in magazines or attain a notable tournament success before writing an article. Quale 05:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this, not much input on this one. Rx StrangeLove 06:02, 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. Physchim62 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Hole, Arizona[edit]

non-notable Gator1 12:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 12:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy is to list genuine placenames, so keep. Pilatus 12:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see e.g.[25]. It had a post office from 1918 to 1927 - not very notable admittedly but shows there is room for expansion of article. Dlyons493 Talk 12:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup, and delete if not extended after 1 or 2 months. - Andre Engels 13:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but send to cleanup per Andre Engels.--Isotope23 17:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real place. Kappa 18:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please we should not erase articles about real places Yuckfoo 23:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to policy.--Nicodemus75 04:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 04:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real community. I would strongly suggest never nominating a verifiable locality for deletion. This policy is well-settled. Xoloz 15:34, 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 --Gareth Hughes 22:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wwp south[edit]

article consists solely of a question. A quick search on the internet for "wwp south" does not turn up meaningful content to fill out the article. Zippy 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The only possibly relevant Google hit refers to a high school in West Windsor–Plainsboro, New Jersey, a suburb of Princeton. Its name is West Windsor-Plainsboro High School South ("WW-P South"). A Google search for "wwp south" + arkansas gives 3 non-relevant hits. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right, the match you found would best be named West Windsor-Plainsboro High School South, though whether it would merit its own entry, or just be part of West Windsor-Plainsboro High School is another question. --Zippy 23:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't get any more threadbare than this. Without a doubt speediable as CSD:G1 or CSD:A1. Denni☯ 03:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as CSD:A1 or possibly CSD:A4. MCB 23:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no salvageable content, no reason for existing. --Zippy 08:07, 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 — the votes fell 8/4 delete, with 2 for keep stating that they were weak; also, serious concerns about verifiability and notability were raised. --Gareth Hughes 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

nn wrestling company of Jerry Bishop and other wrestlers which im about to put on VFD.Says in the article that it is a small professional wrestling company. Promotional also Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and a mass delete for the twenty wrestlers. -- Kjkolb 02:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete unkown. I don't even see proof an organization with this exact name; in Logan, Ohio; has these wrestlers. But, even if everything in the article is verified, it's still not worthy of inclusion. --rob 05:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Plus the wikilinks in the article are all screwed up. - Sensor 05:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 08:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ganymead 16:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep insofar as this is a nascent organization growing in popularity in the midwest United States. As to the indivividual wreslers, Delete and re-do if the organization becomes more popular. Jtmichcock 13:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP... I've actually heard of this organization and I'm not even into wrestling. But I agree about the individual wrestlers... get rid of those links and delete their articles. --Tedzsee 03:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does it pass the test in WP:CORP? Vegaswikian 06:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is M. W. Secoy and I am the one who started the XWE page. Now, I don't seem to see what kind of a problem this site has with small pages, but this is a huge work in progress which I can only attend to a handfull of days a week. I plan on adding much more content on the sites, pictures and all at permission of the company and would like to hope I can continue to slowly build this site without having to worry about this sites standards. From what I can see, this is a harmless page without foul language or nudity. It's a chance to show off a small company of hard workers on a broader scale. The intent of starting this site was so that we could possibly have people have might be searching for independent wrestling stumble upon the site, gain interest from it and check it out. No where have I shoved any advertisement on the site, nor have I even listed the adress of the building. As for the link issue, I don't seem to see what it is you are talking about. I click on the links to get back from wrestler to the XWE and they seem to work just fine for me. Again, I know this seems like a small site but trust me, it's a work in progress and I'm doing it for the benefit of many great hard working guys. Besides, what could it hurt? Do you guys get paid to surf around and find web pages started by people that you don't think is worthy of Wiki? There's a webpage about XWE on Wiki. So what? What does it really matter to you? No real skin off your nose in the long run, right? Why not just leave it be if it's only showcasing a growing thing in Ohio? Like I stated before, it's an innocent site without foul language, nudity, or other things like that. Delete those pages, but leave this one alone? Thank you for listening.

M. W. Secoy

    • There is a harm in having an article on such an unknown organization. None of the information in the article, can be confirmed with reliable sources. Information, on a well known group, like World Wrestling Entertainment can easily be verified, and false information quickly removed. Anybody could put anything in this article, and other editors would have no way of knowing what's real and what's not. Also, wikipedia isn't a venue for promotion, and we don't give free advertising. Advertising costs money, this page has a cost, even though you and I may not be the ones paying. --rob 02:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question for M. W. Secoy: in this case, how professional is "professional"? I assume that money must surely change hands, but do the wrestlers generally consider their involvement with Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment to be their career and primary source of income, or is it something they do as a hobby or "on the side"? To compare this subject with precedents set by previous articles, we generally keep truly professional sports organisations, but generally do not keep amateur/hobbyist organisations. In either case, please do not consider this anything personal against XWE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, I still don't see this as anything other than NN vanity. Also questionable violation of WP:NOT. Every semipro wrestler in the country will end up being listed if this continues. I reiterate: delete but without prejudice to Mr. Secoy's right to repost the article if something notable about the league comes up. - Sensor 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I enjoy watching wrasslin', but minor league wrestling companies such as XWE are more than likely going to be only trivia for wrestling fanatics ten years from now. The only reason for siding on the side of Keep instead of Delete for me is that the Professional wrestling promotion article includes a whole bunch of redlinks for minor wrestling promotions such as these. A short article, detailing the highlights of the promoytions history would be appropriate, along with an external link to the companies website might be appropriate. Listing every wrestler and making an article for the same, definitely is not. Caerwine 18:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very, very weak Keep. Even though I want to say Delete on this one, they do establish a sliver of notablility (per Caerwine). --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 22:34, 15 October 2005 (CDT)
    • How can we verify the organization exists as described? --rob 04:16, 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 all --Allen3 talk 14:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Can Man Alexis Mercedes Bobby Changler Chad Andrews Craig McDonald Damien Braddeck Dane Stratmore Dark Phoenix Draven Grayco James Christopher Mark McMonney The Priest Sean Of The Dead Shane Stratmore Trace Chambers Vinnie Capelli[edit]

All nn wrestlers from the nn Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment which I placed on AFD already Delete all --JAranda | watz sup 01:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Kjkolb 02:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 03:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all not notable. I wouldn't even do a re-direct, since some of the names seem generic enough to be used by others more well known. After delete, maybe re-direct Sean Of The Dead to Shaun of the Dead. --rob 04:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. All NN and needlessly taking up important space. - Sensor 06:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All, and if they can be speedied, all the better. Dottore So 08:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but there is no case to speedy them, because the mention of Xtreme Wrestling is a 'claim' of notability. Though not, from this discussion, a very good one. The Land 09:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 13:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ganymead 16:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Gaff talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 11:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. However, keep article on main wrestling league as per discussion in XWE AfD debate. Subsections could be created for popular wrestlers in that article if appropriate.Tedzsee 22:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but keep Xtreme Wrestling Entertainment. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 2:33, 17 October 2005 (CDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish Typewriter[edit]

This page could never be an article in an encyclopedia, not even this one. 134.250.72.165 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A web service. JFW | T@lk 08:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet another website. - Andre Engels 13:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - this article has been up before, possibly with the "t" in lower case. It's just advertising. --MacRusgail 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above --Carnildo 22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've just added it as an external link at Yiddish language, which is the appropriate place for it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Angr above. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as stated above, this has been on BEFORE! Trouble is, it's not even a particularly good service, since there's hardly any words it can type in for you.--MacRusgail 12:02, 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 BEING DEALT WITH AS COPYVIO. Assertion of permission will be dealt with at WP:CP. -Splashtalk 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zyman Institute of Brand Science[edit]

Utterly nn. nom&vote delete Gaff 05:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with keep. I'll retract my nom. --Gaff 07:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE THE ARTICLE This is not a company, but a leading institute at a major University. This article is just as needed as the profiles of the many other institutes listed on Wikipedia including:

- Hoover Institute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institute

- Kyushu Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_Institute_of_Design

- Asian Institute of Mgnt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Institute_of_Management

- Cato Institute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute etc.

  • Keep This is an Institute affiliated with Emory University and may well be notable enough for an article. This article is a copyvio of [26] as spotted by Daedalus but not by me earlier. As with all copyvios, this current version should be deleted unless a proper version can be written. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJay spotted the copyvio, I just confirmed it and flagged the article... --Daedalus-Prime 02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best merge with Emory. Article is a copyvio taken from institute publications. Zyman also can not be compared with Hoover and Cato, which are both prestigious institutions. --JJay 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flagged as copyvio as noted by Capitalistroadster. Delete unless copyvio is addressed. --Daedalus-Prime 21:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • SAVE PAGE - this is NOT a copyright violation. I fully authorize the use. I am Greg Thomas, the Director of the Zyman Institute of Brand Science. You can contact me with comments at [email protected].
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_14&oldid=1081093362"