Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

Purge server cache

October 16[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 --Allen3 talk 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

廖[edit]

Just seems to be an unremarkable Chinese character. Can anything else be said about it? Flowerparty■ 14:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is identical to the character's article on Wiktionary. (There should be a speedy criterion for this kind of thing...) Haeleth 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It also isn't linked to from any other Wikipedia page except this one. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DES (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 01:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam ragheb[edit]

Non-notable intern for Boeing who is a model aircraft enthusiast. He also makes an unverifiable claim of working on a super secret project. -- Kjkolb 10:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A7 speedy delete No assertions of notability. Thousands of people worked on the plane project and even if the secret project existed, there is no indication that his role in it was particularly notable. The Manhattan Project was secret at the time but had thousands of people work on it. Not all of those people were notable. Capitalistroadster 11:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is actually a high school senior in Illinois. --JJay 01:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Haham hanuka 16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lies Lies and more Lies. I have worked personally with Mr. Ragheb for years. he is not a high school senior and is kind of a big deal at boeing. Dont be jealous that there isnt a profile about you on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.160.179 (talk • contribs) 14:39, October 21, 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 --Allen3 talk 01:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AI(clan)[edit]

Nonnotable gaming clan. Created by an anon user (contributions) that has made only a few edits and has vandalized Pure Pwnage (diff), Neo (The Matrix) (diff), and George W. Bush (diff) in the past. Karol 10:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: anon user has continued to vandalize and has been blocked. Karol 07:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a clan with a million members, you think that a Google search for "AI Counterstrike clan" would turn up, say, a relevant hit on the first five pages. Lord Bob 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 06:12, 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 Speedily delete as attack page BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Manuel[edit]

Content is "Allan Manuel is gay" Delete tag added also.>File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Stephen[edit]

Supposedly a model, singer and an actress, but I couldn't find any evidence of that or her movie on Google, IMDb or All Music. Her alleged boyfriend is a real person, though. -- Kjkolb 10:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and protect from recreation. I just noticed that it was deleted before with similar content (it's so helpful when a closing admin actually writes something besides "delete"). -- Kjkolb 10:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete completely unverifiable. Dottore So 06:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a young girl's fantasy. --JJay 01:32, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 12:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanyara[edit]

This is an advertisement for a resort that hasn't even opened yet. Joyous (talk) 17:07, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was lack of consensus.  Denelson83  08:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dickson[edit]

Non-notable multi-disciplinary artist. No evidence he meets WP:BIO. Quale 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am influenced to keep by all the festivals and large universities he has been shown at. Qaz (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, google turns up one self-referential hit.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this for more comment. Rx StrangeLove 17:42, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rusk[edit]

Vanity page, does not meet notability requirements Anetode 12:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity page for random busker Bwithh 16:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity --MacRusgail 20:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might have seen this guy at a Vancouver SkyTrain station. I wanted to Delete him there, too. -- Corvus 02:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this guy on vacation to Vancouver, I bought his CD from him. I don't think it is doing any harm.
  • He was in a Vancouver magazine a few months back, apparently he is really good.
  • Delete - vanity
  • I posted this topic orignally. I saw him when I visited Vancouver from Scotland. I bought his CD and was listening to it, and it dawned on he that I should post a topic. He is very good, when I saw his magic show, he had a crowd of 200 plus. When I saw his music, there were people really getting into the music.


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Physchim62 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AR15.com[edit]

The original location of this article Ar15.com had an AfD here which due to repeated nonsensical recreation was protected deleted. User:Mmx1 asked at VfU if that could undeleted/unprotected since he wanted to try writing a proper article. That request was approved and so I've actually moved the draft article to this (correct) title and redirect the lowercased version here. Since VfU suggested the original be brough here, I've done so. -Splashtalk 16:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as i dont personally like Wikipedia articles ending in .com (as it looks unencyclopedic). I will vote for this to be renamed - AR15 (website) - Bwfc 12:56, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Armands Leimanis[edit]

Not notable. Jūzeris | Talk 11:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Jūzeris | Talk 11:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable - Google finds little except pejoratives for possibly other people. Dlyons493 Talk 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axelism[edit]

Hoax article for a non-existent religion. Joyous (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Quasi-'religions' of unsourced and unverifiable origin are non-notable. Eddie.willers 17:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 07:22, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, for having no content. -R. fiend 21:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Hill, New South Wales, Warringah Road[edit]

The submitter of this article is publishing numerous others, each exactly the same format as this. Empty articles on streets in a suburb in New South Wales? How is that notable. I vote delete this and all the others. Gaff talk 02:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC) See also:[reply]

Above five added to the list by Neier 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all of them per nom. I nominated one of them and he removed the tag and I wasn't in the mood for a fight.Gator1 02:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a message on his talk page (hopefully nicely phrased). Here was the reply.

Suburb Streets

Hi,

The main reason for adding street pages to my suburb article is to create community. I am publicly proposing that members of our local community participate in this Wiki project so they can add thier collective knowledge of the history of thier street.

From my experience, every street has it's history, as does every family and I think this project provides the mechanism for them to document that. This ranges from previous property owners to various events. I feel this can be helpful especially in researching family history.

On the other hand, I think your point of view might be that it's important to conserve articles so that they can be managed properly. I agree, conserving space and promoting managability is important, however, the alternative might be to have a whole lot of sub-headings within the main article and make the article very long. This has an effect on the usability of an online document in my opinion.

I welcome your comments and look forward to your reply.

While I admire his efforts towards creating community, I wonder if he will be better of using something like blogger. He could then set up blog accounts for every family in his neighborhood to put up photos and the whole nine yards.--Gaff talk 02:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no content --Anetode 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot of them. Wikipedia isn't a project to document the history of every small neighborhood out there, and while I can appreciate his attempts to build a local community, that isn't Wikipedia's goal either. There are better tools for that out there, anyway. -- Captain Disdain 03:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I left a message to that effect on his user page.--Gaff talk 03:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes I am voting to delete my own articles. To keep the peace. Apparently this level of detail is not acceptable in Wikipedia, but has left me wondering what level is appropriate. Any help is always welcome.Peter Konnecke
  • Delete or Speedy better as either test page in speedy or roadcruft in regular delete --JAranda | watz sup 05:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Capitalistroadster. Any historic or interesting information about particular roads could help fill out the beacon Hill article (if there is any such info on any of the pages). Grutness...wha? 08:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Captain Disdain --TimPope 09:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to proper name and merge and redirect any useful info in the article on the town. Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that merging requires the edit history to be retained so merge and delete is not a possible vote per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are we even having this conversation? These are such obvious speedy deletes it's painful to sit here and watch people vote. Did anyone who didn't vote delete actuallt read these? There is zero content. Literally. Nothing! I believe I speedied a couple of these before they were nominated, and I'm very tempted to do so again. there is nothing to merge! -R. fiend 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does seem to confirm my suspicion that many editors do not read the articles they vote on. That's a little disturbing. -R. fiend 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete agreeing with the above sentiment. Dottore So 21:44, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename — the article is of a reasonable quality and its subject is notable enough. The company's official name seems to be BigBlueBall.com, although the text of the site often just uses BigBlueBall. I'll move the article to BigBlueBall.com and create redirects to it. --Gareth Hughes 12:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigblueball.com[edit]

Advertising for a website with Alexa rank of 60,000--shockingly, not a porn site. Non-notable commercial website advertising. Meelar (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pains me to say it but Keep, add {{advertisement}} tag and rewrite. "Bigblueball" gets 140k results on Google, 100,000+ posts on their forum from 1,000 active members. Just barely enough to be notable... based on that. Seems to be a somewhat computer-literate site so that can hurt an Alexa rank a tad... people are less likely to be using IE/Alexa. At any rate it meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Websites by having over 5,000 unique forum members (25,662). --W.marsh 21:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shockingly not a porn site? Ouch. At any rate, I created the site; someone else submitted this entry. If it ends up not being deleted, I'd like to edit and add details. jhester
    • Feel free to edit it now, that will improve the chances of it not being deleted. See here and here for some guidelines, but basically the article shouldn't read as an advert but simply as a description of what the site is. --W.marsh 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced the entry with factual material. It reads better and closely follows the guidelines. -Jhester
  • Rename - Big Blue Ball (website) - Bwfc 18:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to BigBlueBall (website) as per above. DES (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Harvest Records[edit]

Vanity for nonnotable record label. tregoweth 02:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gator1 02:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:MUSIC. Michael Elam who is mentioned twice is also up for Afd likely vanity --Reflex Reaction 13:34, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot, as this was speedily deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Body Slam (movie)[edit]

Vandalism page. It had been tagged speedy but author removes tags, so I have to bring here. --202.156.6.54 16:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete unless someone rewrites this into a proper article about the movie. I am a newbie admin and I don't know the process for deleting articles after AFD has begun otherwise I would have just deleted the thing outright. 23skidoo 18:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BOSaNOVA[edit]

nothing claimed that would bring it above WP:CORP standards Qaz (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. Another "interface solution". Delete Denni☯ 22:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --JJay 01:29, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butterscochcat[edit]

non-notable news story with no relevance to title. Tagged as a speedy but does not fit any CSD IMO. Delete. DES (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. -- RHaworth 10:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--FloNight 00:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Butterscochcat? sounds like fiction to me. --JJay 02:33, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to list of sexual positions. --Gareth Hughes 13:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning the Spoon[edit]

Article is verbatim text from what is already covered under List of sex positions. Same editor also posting Bagging the bunny and other sex positions as separate articles. vote REDIRECT back to original list. Gaff talk 01:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is at least the second time that this has come back after being deleted. Let original judgment stand. - Gator1 01:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gator: I see you listed Bagging the bunny for a speedy delete. I propose that both artilces be kept with redirects back to the list of sexual positions. These terms may potentially be entries into search engines and it would be better for the information to be accessible than not. The lits of sexual positions site seems the obvious place for this information to be collected.--Gaff talk 01:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete & redirect to List of sexual positions as per Gaff --Anetode 02:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of sexual positions or Anal-oral contact. --Icarus 04:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no redirect as it is a neologism not in wide use. It might even be made up, there's no relevant Google hits that I could find and it would be unlikely to be use such a term since it is limited to the first time. -- Kjkolb 07:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Agreed. The first time I put this up I only briefly read the content. Sounds like a neologism or at best slang that is in limited use. delete.--Gaff talk 07:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect is probably the best thing. This stuff will just keep coming back if we delete it. --Gaff talk 07:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Bagging the bunny was similarly created as an article from the list of sexual positions. It has been deleted spedily (proposed by Gator and deleted by User:R. fiend. If we decide that Cleaning the spoon is a redirect back to the list, then Bagging the bunny probably needs to go the same. Given that this is apparently a contentious issue that has some controversy surrounding it, Bagging the bunny probably should not have been speedied. --Gaff talk 21:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list, so people typing this in will find the list. Only delete if the original content that was deleted earlier wasn't merged into the list (which disallows deletion because GFDL requires attribution). In fact, just redirect to be on the safe side. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - think many of these sex positions are fairly obscure, and probably only practised as exoticisms. --MacRusgail 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: redirecting would preserve the content, which is currently unverified by even the most disreputable source and is possibly unverifiable. Someone likely made this and bagging the bunny up and including it without proof makes us look foolish. -- Kjkolb 10:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without redirect (Delete) and include in Sexual_slang#Anal_intercourse. -Andrew 18:03, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Hoban[edit]

likely hoax. See talk page GraemeMcRae 02:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gator1 02:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Anetode 03:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment from said talkpage:
I see no references and had no luck finding any info on this poet on google. Admittedly not an exhaustive search. Still, it would be nice if the original contributor of this article could furnish some verifiable references before any of us expend time with editing. How otherwise do we know this is not all a hoax? I picture of the guys book of poetry would be terrific if anyone has access and a scanner.
*I'll vote delete unless something comes up to document verifiability of this article. --Gaff talk 08:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - not in our Library catalogue either. Dlyons493 Talk 19:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything either, --Reflex Reaction 13:30, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3[edit]

This game was announced in a single mass-e-mail by one guy who was high-up on the development ladder. But he has since been sacked. There has been no word from anyone regarding this title, not even EA. This leads me to the conclusion that it started development but was canned. I don't believe we will ever see this, nor will we see Tiberian Twlight or Renegade 2, but at least those games had some details and concept art. RA3 has had a few lines announced by someone who doesn't even work for EA anymore. Ferret 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ESkog | Talk 15:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the reasons provided by Ferret, along with the sheer lack of content in the article, I'm pretty sure this is covered by WP:NOT crystal ball. if it turns out in the future to be a real game in development, the article can be recreated at that point in time. Saberwyn 08:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jkelly 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Ferret and Saberwyn. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 04:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Strong Redirect, this article shouldn't be kept, but it shouldn't be deleted either. There will likely be a Red Alert 2 sequel in the future, and this article should just be redirected to the main Command & Conquer page (which already has some stuff about known facts about a possible RA3 from EA, so people looking for RA3 will be sent to the proper place) so it won't have to undergo a vote for undeletion in the future. (BTW Ferret, that email wasn't the first possibility of RA3, it has been hinted by Westwood and EA in the past) Jareand 04:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — mæstro t/c, 09:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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  08:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Brogdon[edit]

Nonsense

  • Delete Article is nonsense...a few Google hits to a possible cartoonist--MONGO 09:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Didn't need to come to AfD.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 17:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete There is nothing in this article that isn't a fact. While the author may not be able to completely cite the specific details of each fact, the story is arranged in a non-biased way that proves to be most effective in telling the urban legend of Conor Brogdon. Just because google doesn't have hits for it, it doesn't mean it isn't real. Arizona has a very rich culture of Urban myths and legends. This happens to be one of the more obscure and doubly interesting ones.
  • Speedy delete --MacRusgail 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Speedy delete. --JJay 21:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete CSD:A1, short article with no context, a la "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great." MCB 07:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and so tagged. DES (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of Maria Josepha[edit]

Nothing to indicat that the crown is in anyway important. Possible redirect. CambridgeBayWeather 11:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have Crown of Queen Elizabeth and I don't see that we shouldn't have this. It's important enought to be displayed in a museum. Needs expansion obviously. Marskell 11:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Marskell; helps to address regional bias. CLW 12:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just not remarkable, unless someone can redirect this into Maria Josepha, then I vote delete.Voice of All @|E|Merit 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The same user has created Crown of August III and Crown of August II, which should probably have the same fate as this article, whatever that happens to be. GTBacchus 17:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notable. Kappa 18:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's no entry for Maria Josepha how could her crown possibly be construed as being in any way notable? I also would recommend against a Google search on Maria Josepha as it's a rather common name in Spanish. A search for "Crown of Maria Josepha," however, yields 0 results. Not only is this not notable, it's clearly not verifiable. Soltak | Talk 23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Soltak. We should possibly list her on requested articles. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here is basically no information here. If someone gets around to writing an article on Maria Josepha, an aside could be made that the crown is on display at the Warsaw museum. Delete other crown articles as well. Dottore So 06:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • visitor About the Polish crown jewels. The original Polish regalia- Crown of Boleslaus the Brave (corona originalis) in 1733 was hidden. But elected king Augustus III was fully prepared for such possibly. He had a new set of regalia made in Saxony for his Polish coronation. The regalia included: crown of Augustus III, crown of his consort Maria Josepha, 2 sceptres, 2 orbs and 3 swords. He and his wife were crowned with them in Cracow in 1734. The regalia of Augustus III and Maria Josepha displayed in Dresden until 1924. In 1925 Polish Government purchased Augustus III’s regalia in Vienna for $ 35,000. The regalia were exhibited in Warsaw at 1939. In 1940 were stolen by the Germans. The crowns were found by Soviet troops in Germany and then sent to the USSR where they remained until 1960. In 1960 the Soviets returned the regalia communist Poland (PRL). Today are deposit in Warsaw's National Museum (not in public display).

More information about Polish crowns and other europeans crowns [2].

About Maria Josepha. She was a daughter of Joseph I Habsburg and wife of August III of Saxony.

More information in Polish Wikipedia [3]

  • Keep even if we don't have an article on her, keep the stub about her crown and write an article about her. Xoloz 13:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the rather nice article-in-waiting from the above anon and create the Polish crown jewels article. Denni☯ 23:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand and improve, not delete. Gryffindor 13:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal_Caverns[edit]

This page continues to be total gibberish...it has been edited a few times and never remotely nears a context... 70.119.8.76

  • Speedy as patent nonsense. the wub "?!" 22:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be an episode for a kids series called Toad Patrol. However, the series appears to be fairly unknown and having individual (never mind poorly written) articles for episodes just doesn't seem right for Wikipedia. Saberwyn 08:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Aquino[edit]

Unencyclopedic summary of what would better be published in a tabloid, describing sexual misconduct between two underage participants that was turned into internet hype for a brief time. vote delete. Gaff talk 07:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikpedia is not a gossip column.--Gaff talk 07:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This kid, by the way, is what 16 years old? who wants to subject a 16 year old kid to having to go through the rest of his life with an article like this in Wikipedia??--Gaff talk 07:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personal diary, not encyclopedic--MONGO 08:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. It's not an internet hype. And while Wikipedia isn't censored for the protection of minors, it should be censored when it comes to the protection of of the privacy of minors when their sexual escapades are concerned. - Mgm|(talk) 12:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism on this page. Entire discussion replaced with the following text by User: 216.221.111.52. —Gaff talk 02:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is important for everyone to know what a dumb ass that kid is. It should be in here, because it is under the correct section or whatever it's called. If you delete this, you should delete the whole section.
  • The same user left a message on my talk page. Here it is along with my reply.—Gaff talk 04:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that's pretty stupid that anyone would consider deleting that. if that's deleted, then the entries about REAL Ultimate Power and Brian Peppers should be deleted to.EDIT: WOW. I have no idea how to use wikipedia.
  • The above comment is in reference to AfD on Danny Aquino. The article describes sexual misadventures of two teenagers, that strikes me as both inappropriate for an encyclopedia and harmful to the person about whom it is written.—Gaff talk 04:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the REAL Ultimate Power and Brian Peppers article, I have little to say.—Gaff talk 05:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ephemeral news story of no encyclopedic interest. MCB 04:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save* It's an internet phenomenon. It deserves to be saved because it describes a guy who stole a cellphone, then got his face plastered all over the internet. It does not describe a sex scene at all, it simply states he took a video of himself doing it.(unsigend comment by user: 24.168.158.35.))
  • Big deal? Lots of people do stupid stuff all the time. Some of them go to jail for the stupid things that they do. Sometimes they pay their debt to society, if you will, then go on to lead productive lives. There is nothing about the topic of this article that needs to be noted in an encyclopedia. I'm not saying that it can or even should be deleted from every web-page, just that it does need need to be in an encyclopedia. (Frankly, the story is pretty uninteresting--not even the Rob Lowe scandal held public interest for long).—Gaff ταλκ 00:43, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Day laborers - law enforcement site regarding illegal immigration[edit]

nn website, no alexa [4] , Delete  --  W  P Talk 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable website, lousy article. -Willmcw 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (moved here by -Willmcw 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)) Go to www.daylaborers.org itself. This is one of the Internet versions of the old CrimeStoppers programming, only that this is about aliens, both legal and illegal who commit crimes in their host nation, in this case, the USA, which law enforcement agencies want them, such as the Postal Service IF the crime was related to the Mail, for instance Mail Fraud, obtaining,sending obscene matter in the mail for example. All this blog does, as mentioned, help locate aliens, both legal and illegal, who has been accused of one or more crimes, to prosecute them and/or deport them after sentencing them. Found this blog while utilizing the Internet one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.105.212 (talk • contribs) 06:10, October 16, 2005 [reply]
  • Comment Still recommend that this article be terminated ? I ran into this thing while I was looking at some sites regarding illegal aliens,immigration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.105.212 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 October 2005 Go to http//:www.daylaborers.org[5] itself, and you'll see some of the pix-ed alien criminals wanted by law enforcement,crimes committed by the aliens referred to in this site,known occupations of the depicted aliens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.105.212 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 October 2005
  • Delete. Subject is a non-notable website, and article is near gibberish. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Website just not notable. --JJay 01:07, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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  08:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deathfist Ninja GKaiser[edit]

A relatively new webcomic, found here, it's 7 member forum can be found here. No assertion of notability in the article, a google search gives 40 links, mostly webcomic toplists and random crosslinking. - Hahnchen 14:06, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Chris Wilcox[edit]

Delete. Can't find cited paper at the CERN website given in link; can't find record of a Wilcox working at CERN. See also Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory, which seems to be a hoax article. The author, a new User:Lithium412, has apparently been vandalizing pages. ---CH (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Not in Google Scholar either. Dlyons493 Talk 19:21, 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. And please do not vandalise this site. If you have any questions, please contact me at the usual address. --Svenson 22:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Svenson might not be an entirely unbiased contributor to this AfD. Transparent hoax, say I.---CH (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page was vandalised by User:86.9.0.194 who changed the votes of other persons and then User:212.139.49.239 corrected some spelling errors in another person's vote. I have therefore rolled back to the 09:22, 18 October 2005 Hillman version. chowells 20:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per CH . -- Corvus 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --JJay 00:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CH. chowells 01:19, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud gavron[edit]

non notable - Vanity Rjayres 03:06, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 22:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Aldridge[edit]

No claim of notability. Her book was published through a vanity press, so shouldn't count too much towards notability. Thue | talk 16:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only 53 google hits [6] and the only google scholar hit is a list of donors with an elizabeth aldridge [7]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above Bwithh 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity press authors. Average Earthman 21:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. --JJay 13:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -R. fiend 14:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entropic soul[edit]

Links to a website, not notable or encyclopedic

  • Delete --MONGO 09:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Article contains no context. tagged. --GraemeL (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm speedying this; textbook case of nonsensical article. Meets several CSD criteria. -R. fiend 14:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ergun bayrakçı[edit]

CV in Turkish (apparently of a university professor). Has been listed on WP:PNT since 1 October. Physchim62 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete he's Professor and Head of Electrical & Electronics Eng. Dept at Bahcesehir Uni, Turkey. Has some Googles [8] but this article does him no justice. Dlyons493 Talk 17:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn academic. Dottore So 06:14, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esporas[edit]

Written in Spanish. Alr 00:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal knobbing[edit]

  • Article should not be deleted, it would simply arrogant to do so. This is a genuine urban myth circulating in Northern Ireland, undoubtedly untrue, but nonetheless people have an interest in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndunn87 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE. It's a failed attempt at humour. User:Matt.whitby 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources to back up the claim that this is a "genuine urban myth", and research turns up no sources either. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 17:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly genuine urban myth, possibly even true - recommend not trying to verify it though. Dlyons493 Talk 17:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverified, no sources. Rohirok 19:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Moriori 00:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unsourced speculation and OR. MCB 07:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and send to BJAODN. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:17, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 22:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Zapatista state of Chiapas[edit]

Doesn't Exist. (hoax?)

I can't find mention of the "Federal Zapatista state of Chiapas" anywhere except here in wikipedia, and in all the direct copies of wikipedia. It's my belief that the Zapatistas don't, in fact, claim such a state.

What they do claim is that there are 32 autonomous municipalities inside Chiapas, but this article cannot address that, and that would probably be best done as a list of the specific municipalities, or maybe a category, and then mention in each of the municipalities articles (if they have been created).

No fixups will make this article useful if there isn't actually such a thing in existance.

--Doviende 16:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that this is nonsense. But more than a hoax, the article was probably written by someone who has a very poor understanding of the topic. Either way, it should be deleted. --Vizcarra 22:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete as above. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Freak show. Hermione1980 22:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freakshow[edit]

Cruft, and not very well written cruft at that. Could even be considered vandalism (although probably inadvertant by inexperienced user) as creating this article erased a previous redirect to Freak show. Propose delete this article and reinstate previous redirect. CLW 12:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you think that the article on a minor character should be merged per WP:FICT and turned back into a redirect, then just merge it. There's no need to come to AFD. Deletion is not a part of the process. Uncle G 13:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AfD tag removed; redirect reinstated; listing already exists at List of Danny Phantom characters CLW 19:07, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 13:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gazer (Band)[edit]

Mikal and Zack met in a church which they both attended, but they sadly fail WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more comment. Rx StrangeLove 18:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


George Zimmer[edit]

  • i think it should stay.

    the public needs to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisjoe (talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Removing this would be slicing the head off your own generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.252.186 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, CEO of a company that don't even have its own article. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy is in his own commercials so he appears on TV alot. His company really should have an article. Still, this is just lousy. It need cleanup bad. Probably could be merged with Men's Warehouse, whenever it gets an article. -R. fiend 16:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it should be Men's Wearhouse, though that doesn't seem to have an article either. -R. fiend 16:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the rewrite. I added a sentence too. -R. fiend 21:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Let's slice the head off whoever's generation he is. Merge if anyone is sartorially conscious enough. Dlyons493 Talk 17:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as article has now been rewritten wrt Wiki standards. Eddie.willers 17:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep He's certainly notable enough. Rewrite looks good.

Roodog2k (Hello there!) 18:07, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into Sheep (Zodiac). --Gareth Hughes 13:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goat (zodiac)[edit]

Delete, because Goat (zodiac) is simply a copy of Sheep (zodiac). It will evolve in a different direction, confuse people, make the real page (or this one) harder to find, etc.. It should have been a redirect instead, although nobody will ever look for "Goat (zodiac)", especially with the capitalization. Retodon8 01:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Merge, since the pages aren't exact duplicates. —Cryptic (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the sheep article and rename as either "Year of the Goat" or "Year of the sheep" - that is their most common titles. The current title is most misleading as it refers to Chinese astrology and most people who think of Goat (zodiac) will think of the sign Capricornus or Capricorn. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Merge per above. Xoloz 13:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Sheep (zodiac) PRueda29 14:50, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 13:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Eggs and Ham (2009 film)[edit]

No Imdb Page User: Krabs502 16:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete even if it's real; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only if the film has not been announced. Crystal ball does not apply to announced works. However I can't find anything on Google to suggest such a film is in production. If this is confirmed a hoax, please make sure to delete references to it that have appeared in John Goodman and other locations. 23skidoo 18:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable; crystal ball. Xoloz 13:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for crystal ball, but also, why would five rival studios come together to make a cheap animated movie? possibly a hoax PRueda29 20:59, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Håkon Tandberg[edit]

nn band singer person type thing. Asserts some form of notability though. (sigh)♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete; "He has yet to make an official debute." (sic) —Cryptic (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a significant part of the Bergen Wave. Punkmorten 19:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Punkmorten. 30-odd google results [9], mostly from old barely-notable sports events that probably have little to do with the person in question. Sam Vimes 11:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very few people who have "yet to make an official debute." are notable. This man is nonnotable. However, perhaps Håkon Tandberg is simply not notable among english speakers. I see no evidence to indicate this, though. Cool3 23:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (x2) nonsense. -Doc (?) 13:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hans von Seisser[edit]

Nonsense...title has nothing to do with article

  • Delete Nonsense.--MONGO 08:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you Daniel, this page is great, it gave me a real insight into Hans von Seisser. I had to do a project on him and your page was perfect for it. I must say never delete this article, its great. I would have sex with it if i could. I like cheese, and burritos, burritos with cheese in them, now thats practically orgasmic. So remember DONT DELETE THIS PAGE OR I WILL PUNCH YOU IN THE OVARIES!!! This plea is by Haydn 'Tinkerbell' Lea

  • Speedy Delete. Worse than nonsense. Logophile 12:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted it. It's clearly nonsensical and it had nothing to do with the article title. - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreated, so I speedied it again - if this goes blue again, please someone delete and protect! --Doc (?) 13:56, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect --Gareth Hughes 13:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haran in The Bible[edit]

Rambling text, Haran already has an article. Redirect would not make sense as no one would use this phrase. -- Kjkolb 10:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect. At least one person used it. Trollderella 19:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Trollderella. They're cheap and s/he's right. Denni☯ 22:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not exactly, the title was copied from an encyclopedia entry where Haran in the Bible had to be disambiguated from other Harans. -- Kjkolb 23:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 13:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heroquest webcomic[edit]

nn webcomic, does not meet WP:COMIC. Delete  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 17:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. -- SCZenz 16:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Article incorrectly referred to Afd.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highballer[edit]

No Alexa ranking, nn with 508 google hits for highballer (certainly many are unrelated as well) Punkmorten 07:57, 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.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hopesfall/old

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopesfall[edit]

Barely breaks 20,000 Google hits, website's Alexa rating did not break the two million mark. Delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to say clean it up and keep it, since they've got discography, etc, but some wiseass decided to delete the other comments left here (check the history) in regards to the article and replace it with "leave it up". Charming. Does that warrant a deletion? Devotchka 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I know, keep. I was just annoyed by the random vandalism. :) Devotchka 03:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restored the AfD page after the vandalism. No vote for now. StarryEyes 02:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah Trustkill is one of the "Major indie" labels. 2 albums on Trustkill=Meets WP:MUSIC.--CastAStone 03:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:music. Two albums on a notable independent label and their A Types album making the Billboard independent charts see [10]. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three albums (two on a notable label) and an EP out; first Christian screamo band signed to a mainstream label; has pages on AllMusic and MTV, have done several tours covering the East and West coasts of the US and parts of Canada; and have toured with The Juliana Theory and The Ataris. That meets WP:MUSIC. Also... 20,000 Google hits is a rather high application of the Google test, isn't it? --Idont Havaname 04:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Please stop spamming. Trollderella 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! It's just been a bad day for AFDSPAM. Trollderella 22:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


House of Uncommons[edit]

Nonsense page. Nothing historical comes up on google Bwithh 19:44, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — there hasn't been a proper discussion about this, but a one-sentence article that repeats content in another article doesn't seem worth it. I'm going to make this a redirect to the main article. --Gareth Hughes 13:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Cogan[edit]

this article does not say anything that has already been on Jack FM. --TBH 00:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 - defaulting to keep --Celestianpower hablamé 14:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Want You (Madonna song)[edit]

Yet another article on a non-notable cover of a song by a pop singer, filled with POV and biased language (this one blaringly so) that could, as they should all be, reduced to one or two objectively written sentences and merged to a proper album. FuriousFreddy 21:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable collaboration with Massive Attack. Production, remixes, charts, airplay and reactions are all valid information and specific to this version. Kappa 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to I Want You. The original version was done by Marvin Gaye. This version appeared on a tribute album to him. The Madonna version is part of the history of the song and his version is better known than hers. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct to I Want You as it has now been revised covering both the Marvin Gaye and Madonna version. I Want You should be moved to I Want You (song) while I Want You should be a disambiguation covering both the song and album. Capitalistroadster 10:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search. Jkelly 02:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jkelly. Dystopos 02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 12:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Capitalistroadster. If there are boxes, templates etc in other Madonna articles, they will want this redirect so that those things still work. (I know they could change the wiki-markup, but that may end up being a large and tedious job, and redirects are cheap.) However, this version really doesn't need a page of its own. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Musicpvm 03:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it has all the essential information for a single article, it is well written and well structured and has too much information to be merged with any other article as there are several points to expand on further. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 09:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with Kappa and Ultimate Star Wars Freak OmegaWikipedia 12:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable article, and deserves to remain on Wikipedia. --Winnermario 13:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


ILL Literate[edit]

Vanity page, written apparently by Cody Snyder himself Bwithh 23:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have believed it if his login name wasn't Cody Snyder. Delete. Freshgavin 01:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy; vanity page. MCB 07:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Freshgavin. Xoloz 13:33, 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 Delete — doesn't meet Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion: it's probably a protologism. --Gareth Hughes 13:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the zone[edit]

Dict. def. Transwiiki to Wiktionary. — Laura Scudder | Talk 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn dicdef. --MacRusgail 20:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Wikitionary has standards and inclusion criteria too. It does not accept neologisms. encephalon 18:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. closed by Jtkiefer. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett Cole[edit]

Obvious vanity/non-notable Boxclocke 18:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete blatent vanity chowells 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Waterloo Technologies is not a notable company and the article make no other assertion of notability. Punkmorten 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page. Bbatsell 19:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Sam Vimes 11:56, 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 obvious keeper --Tony SidawayTalk 00:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jessamyn West (librarian)[edit]

I feel this is a vanity page, non-notable. --lesalle 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article already passed an deletion vote in April. tregoweth 04:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous deletion debate
  • keep seems notable enough and no indactaion of a change since previous debate. DES (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough in her profession and takes an active role in public debate including writing two books. My understanding is that she is a Wikapedian as User:Jessamyn so this could be userfied if necessary. However, this is not a vanity page and is worth keeping. Capitalistroadster 10:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already passed VfD. Comments on two issues follow. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Notability. Having been mentioned in the New York Times, singled out for special notice in Library Journal, cited in Wired for her anti-PATRIOT-act activities, and being among the first bloggers in history to be given press credentials raises her above the bar for notability. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2) With respect to vanity: she did not create the article. To most intents and purposes, I did, pursuant to what I would call a "badly executed article request" by an anon. I had never heard of her before an anon dropped in a one-line substub, "Jessamyn West, AKA the Rarin Librarian. One of Library Journal's Mover & Shakers, West is best known for her 'blog, librarian.net." I strongly doubt this anon was Jessamyn West, because a) she already had a Wikipedia profile and had done some minor work on some Vermont articles; b) all of her public writing, in Wikipedia and her blog and in emails to me, is very literate and different in style from the one-liner; c) in an email correspondence with me she displayed a familiarity with Wikipedia policy with regard to autobiography and expressed reluctance to make any direct edits to the article because of vanity/autobiography concerns. When the one-liner landed on VfD I was shocked that we did not have an article on the Indiana author of The Friendly Persuasion; in the process of working it up I concluded that the librarian/blogger should also have her own article. In emails to her I told her that I did not think minor edits would be taken amiss, and she has made a couple, but she has not done any substantial work on the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on point 1 by Dpbsmith and the previous deletion debate. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't write the original stub about me, and I'm not sure I know who did. Jessamyn 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dbpsmith. — mendel ☎ 15:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dbpsmith. --rob 23:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be notable. Bwithh 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unlisting this because it's an obvious keeper. This doesn't reflect in any way upon the good faith of the nominator. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:18, 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.


  • NOTE on third nomination. I'm not sure what's going on here; I'm not going to participate in the edit warring on the AfD notice, but will point out that the particular template used is invalid; if this is to be listed for deletion at all it should be listed as a third nomination. For the record, my opinion remains unchanged: the subject of the article is notable for the reasons I gave before, and the lopsided "keep" vote on the second renomination in which only the nominator favored deletion and there were seven "keep" votes tends to support Tony Sidaway's judgement. The nominator should not use the word "vanity" to describe the article, as Jessamyn West did not create it and has made no substantial edits to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:07, 3 March 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mele[edit]

Though Joe has been mentioned in the media, he is not yet notable in the encyclopedic sense. The NAAAAP organization is brand-new within the last couple of weeks, and not yet notable; its website shows that it hasn't had much activity yet. The page seems to be a vanity page. ManekiNeko | Talk 11:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. ManekiNeko | Talk 11:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 11:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as per nom or remove my name from the other parts of the WIKI If I am good enough to mentioned in other articles then I shouldbe able to clarify those contexts.JoeMele 18:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unmistakable vanity. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as it stands, the article is a speedy delete; it gives no context, much less anything to signify notability). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete alleged founder of a non-notable group. Dottore So 06:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NAAAAP autism" brings up 19 hits on Google, and this person is only notable for being banned from AFF, taking part in a AFF sponsored protest (one of the first, albeit),and being involved in several online non notable disputes. Plus this page is made by Joe. Delete

Lord Patrick 06:01, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppet votes by new or anonymous users were ignored. --Allen3 talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Larney[edit]

Non-notable person. text of entry suggests that this page was put up as a kind of joke Bwithh 19:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete it. You have no reason. All information on here is not nonsense and this person has been proven to be significant. I also cited my sources. These were your complaints. I have fixed them. Leave the article be! It is not a joke. This person is very important in his realm. He has many followers. TheBill 22:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is the 10th edit by TheBill --Allen3 talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, attack? Dlyons493 Talk 19:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself is poorly written and concerns a non-notable officer of the BSA. There are a mere 21 Google hits from 'John Larney' + "boy scouts". Yes, he is an officer of the 'Old Colony Council' but that does not merit an encyclopaedic inclusion. Eddie.willers 20:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Carabinieri 20:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "THIS MAN HAS A SIGNIFICANCE! John Larney is a significant person because he commands such a large power base throughout New England and the country. Those who cross him regret it and those who win his favor become very comfortable in life." At the risk of never becoming very comfortable in life, I say delete. -- Captain Disdain 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As politely requested by JesusSaves, I have reread the article and admit that it is now in far, far better shape than before. That's good. However, I still don't see why John Larney is notable -- frankly, I don't think that scout leaders, even well-established and popular ones, are significant enough to merit articles on encyclopedias without some other accomplishments or, as the case might be, notoriety. I am not convinced by the two references we've been given, for reasons stated very well by Bunchofgrapes below -- I would like to add to that that I'm quite willing to believe that Mr. Larney served aboard the USS Brush during the early sixties, I just don't think that's particularly significant -- if he had he been the commander of the vessel, for example, that might be another thing. That's really my biggest problem here -- the lack of significance. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but I just don't see why he merits an entry in an encyclopedia. There are lots and lots of scout leaders out there, and the vast majority of them are not notable enough for inclusion. That's not a criticism on them, it's just that of the well over six billion people living on this planet, a very small minority make enough waves in one way or another to merit an article about themselves. Is this guy a really major mover and shaker in the scouts? If he is, providing some solid references regarding his position and authority shouldn't be that hard. I have yet to see any. My vote to delete stands. -- Captain Disdain 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a joke. This person is very important. He is not only an officer in the Old Colony Council, is has been an advisor on the Regional and National levels. TheBill 21:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second vote by TheBill
  • Keep. I can attest that this is a very serious link and that all information (while sometimes misspelled) is accurate and pertinant. This man is very important to politics not only in the local Boy Scouts in Massachusetts but on the National scene as well. Kich164 22:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. see above He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 22:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. JesusSaves 22:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three Keep votes directly above appear to have been made by sockpuppets (only one edit in their history i.e. their votes on this page.) Bwithh 22:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all new users but that doesn't mean that they don't count. They know the importance of this topic and want to see it included in this encyclopedia. They are all long-time users of Wikipedia while not officially registered. TheBill 23:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because being a leader of a local unit of the Boy Scouts is not a sufficient basis for notability. --Metropolitan90 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you not read? What part of the word "National" denotes a worthless local peon? On a separate note, I am fairly new to this whole dealie (in case you can't tell). Is this just a majority rules vote or is there some arbitrator or somting? TheBill 23:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked up the term "sockpuppet" and I am deeply offended. I am a scout (as if you couldn't tell by the article) Our first Law is Trustworthiness. Each of these users are individuals who know the topic. The reason for thier not having many edits under thier belts is that in this area of the US it is not common to be an official Wikipedia "user". While everyone I know uses Wiki all the time, before this article I knew no one with a username. TheBill 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry, in that case, I mean your trusty Meatpuppets not Sockpuppets. Bwithh 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity/mild attack page for - I'm guessing - somebody's Boy Scout troop leader, with some bad-faith-looking efforts to confuse the issue in this Afd page, and by adding statements like "THIS MAN HAS A SIGNIFICANCE!", and references to apparently-nonexistent books to the article. In short, not to be too harsh, go play somewhere else please, we're trying to build an encyclopedia here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added more to express his significance such as his reception of major awards and his military service. The line in question, "THIS MAN HAS A SIGNIFICANCE!", was to combat the speedy delete thing. I gaurantee this is not vanity nor am I attacking anything with this page. Just because you have not read a book doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also not to be harsh, souldn't you have something better to do than wait around looking for articles to delete because you have no previous knowledge of the subject matter? TheBill 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move all content to WP:BJAODN. Andrew Levine 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Larney is not a bad joke. This kangaroo court is a bad joke Kich164 02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no encyclopedic content or evidence of notability. Sockpuppets don't fool anyone. CDC
  • I'd just like to make it clear that this is not in any way a vanity article, and I'd like to cite from Wikipedia's Vanity Guidlines:

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity."

So, the sole fact that the search string "John Larney + boy scouts" only procures 21 hits on Google does not consitute a valid reason for the deletion of this article.12.76.164.157 03:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If so all-powerfully influential in the BSA, you'd think he'd get more than 21 Google hits, wouldn't you? In any case, delete as vanity. Boys, there must be an easier way to earn a Merit Badge. --Calton | Talk 02:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have already determined that vanity is not a reason for deletion. If you think we are trying to "earn a merit badge" we are all over 18 and therefore considered adult leaders. We do not qualify to earn badges. I suggest that you reread the "Civility" section on your talk page, Calton. You obviously haven't got the point even though many have brought it up. 207.159.182.47 02:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I suggest Carlton read over the "Wikipedia: Vanity" article again, since he clearly doesn't understand its contents at this point in time. Vanity is an invalid reason for the deletion of this article, and I find the deprecation of theBill and myself by Carlton to be completely unacceptable.12.76.164.157 02:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Not vanity, but non-notable, bad faith, foolishness. Wikipedia is not a toy. GTBacchus 04:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been cleaned up quite a bit now, and the bad faith nonsense is gone; that helps significantly. I'm tempted to change my vote, citing Wikipedia is not paper, but I think there should be something more in the way of verifiability. (Please click on that link if you haven't already.) Do we have any sources of anyone outside of OA talking about John Larney, or even an obtainable OA publication with information on him and his significance? -GTBacchus 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a lot of heat over someone who according to one of the phots originally posted "Needs a hug"! ...en passant! 07:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn subject; attack-type content; contains little assertion of notabilty, mostly concerned with minor bits of internal scouting politics. MCB 07:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone using sock puppets should be deemed automatically non-notable. Has already been userfied to TheBill but apparently that is not good enough. -- RHaworth 08:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. All the other arguments are getting us nowhere. Logophile 08:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. I lived in MA for years and certainly never heard of this chap. There are lots of national and, for that matter, international officials of large organizations who are not notable. --Clay Collier 08:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regardless of if the individual is notable in the American Scouting community or not, the way the article has been written suggests that the authors are trying to assert greater notability than this person may possess.
I am an Australian Rover Scout, and although I believe that certain members of the world scouting communities hold a level of notablilty within the organisation and their home communities, I also believe that articles on Wikipedia for these people are unnecessary, barring Baden-Powell and possibly some senior members of the World Scouting Organisation.
TheBill, you claim that one of the Scout Laws is trustworthiness. Trustworthiness must first be displayed by the one who wishes to be trusted, and both in the context of this debate and with the methods available to him, Bwithh, along with many other Wikipedians, would be unable to determine the difference between sockpuppets and concerned friends of yours.
If a source that is in wider circulation than the one already provided can be made known and verified by other users, and a notability in correspondance with the views I mentioned above can be proven, I personally would be willing to let this article remain. However, if this information can not be provided by the time of closure for this AFD entry (seven days, I believe), I will have no problems if this article is removed. Saberwyn 09:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, hoax, puppetfest. Xoloz 13:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first off, i would like to make it completely clear that I am unfamiliar with the puppet lingo happening and am in no such form or fashion a puppet of any kind. and on the note of blaming TheBill for using these so called puppets, can you prove that the former comments were made by puppets? probably not, so if you can't prove it stop pointing the finger at others who are innocent until proven guilty. Now, to the point. Just because you have never heard of a certain person does not mean that they are not notable within their field. For example, my grandfather was the founder and president of one of the most succesful trade show companies in the U.S. and if you asked anyone in the field about him they would most likely know who he is. However, if you were to google his name there are very few hits, maybe a family tree and a bridge club. But this does not make him non-notable whatsoever. October 17, Meteu from Team Red Fox {this vote made by User:134.88.161.182}
  • You all need to make pages describing your language here. Some people don't live on websites like thins. I have no idea what phrases like "sockpuppet", "meatpuppet", and "userfied" are but I assure you no one is trying to "attack" "your" encyclopedia. 207.159.182.47 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see this wiki help link here (which I previously linked to above) for an explanation of the puppetry terms Bwithh 15:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And I'm shocked that Scouts would stoop to this level. --JJay 16:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What level? Writing articles? I can't believe that people don't have more to do with thier lives than try to push around new wiki users. 207.159.182.47 16:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through your rules it seems that the generally accepted mark for inclusion in Wikipedia is about 5000 fans/followers. John Larney has this number. In southeastern Massachusetts alone he has over 1000. Add that to those in the rest of the state and country and you would surpass the 5000 mark. For this reason and the others we have listed above I say Keep. {unsigned vote by User:207.159.182.47}
  • Comment - Someone (User:207.159.182.47) said above: "You all need to make pages describing your language here." If there's a group of people who've made more pages describing their language than Wikipedians, I'd like to see them! GTBacchus 17:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are hundreds of them! They are called dictionaries. Almost every language has one. "Wikipedian" does not. 207.159.182.47 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a glossary of wikipedia terms available here, but I think its true that it is not obviously accessible to new users, and that might need improvement. Bwithh 19:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutral, verifiable and factual article is possible. Trollderella 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise. It seems someone has decided to clean up the John Larney page. I appreciate the help. Now that it is closer to Wikipedia standards I propose a compromise. We keep the article similar to as it is now, that is cleaned up as apposed to how it was, and you stop trying to delete it. I think this is fair as there are hundreds of pages for Indie Bands and things that no one has heard of or cares about (this from a self-professed nerd who is interested in everything). Deal? User:TheBill 21:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Have a look at WP:MUSIC for the criteria a band should meet to have a Wikipedia page. We delete probably hundreds of band "vanity" pages a month. No agreement has been reached on what the notability criteria are for modern-day biographies, so those are often decided on a more case-by-case basis. Now, personally, I don't think Mr. Larney is notable enough to merit a page in our encyclopedia. That's not an insult - I am not notable enough either, and neither is anybody I know. Others may disagree about notability here (there are some who think notability isn't a criteria at all), and Wikipedia:Verifiability can be a useful tool in deciding cases like this as well. Are there any independent sources we can find, on the web or in a public library, to verify the claims made in a page? It's not enough that facts are true, they must be verifiable. See also Wikipedia:No Original Research - personal knowledge is never an acceptable source for Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the current Wikipedia Boy Scouts of America Category Page, I think the benchmark question of inclusion should be that is John Larney as significant as H. Roe Bartle, Ray O. Wyland, or Jon_Fulkerson. Or as notable as "Radioactive Boy Scout", David Hahn. Being a Order of the Arrow award winner isn't enough. Bwithh 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Meteu from Team Red Fox" brings up a good point. While vanity has already been disimissed as a nonissue, I think that Mr. Larney is noteable enough to justify such a biographical article. Its true that the article needs to be cleaned up, and is still a stub at this point, but I see no good reason to delete it. Bwithh, I agree with your proposition, and I think that as the article expands, it will become clear that his inclusion is justified.Bcaff 21:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote represents the fifth and sixth edits by Bcaff --Allen3 talk 03:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that being an Order of the Arrow award winner isn't enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia. If that were so I would have a page along with over 100,000 other people. He is a DSA recipient wich is a very rare occurance. This is the highest award given by the Order. Imagine the prestigious Eagle Scout. It is completely worthless compared to the DSA. It is like the Medal of Honor for the OA. As this article expands it will become apparent that he is very noteworthy. TheBill 22:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment according to this official scout page, there have been approximately 500 DSA awards since the DSA was established in 1940.

In 2004, a total of 41 DSA awards were won by different scouts. Bwithh 22:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes there have been 500 DSAs awarded over the last 65 years. During the Second World War which started in 1941 (for the US)there were 485 MOH recipients. That was in 4 years, much less than 65. Yet many MOH recipients have pages. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to degrade the MOH or say that a BSA award is just as good. I am trying to say 500 recipients in 65 years is rare. 207.159.182.47 23:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, possible hoax chowells 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax???!!! Have you even looked at the page recently? Now that it has been cleaned up it is not even remotely mistakable as a hoax! That is just plain rediculous.


  • Keep. This article was obviously started as a joke, when you look at the history that is clear to see. But it has been cleaned up to actual information. In the Order of the Arrow, which is the honor society for the boy scouts and is in all actuality is an organization of its own, John Larney is a significant man. If this article was in its original form I would say delete it. But now it is a real article, and John Larney does have significance. To those who point out that they have never heard of John Larney, Ask you average joe boy scout who the adult head of the National Order of the Arrow is, Ask them who the President of the Boy Scouts is, most won't know those names either. You don’t have to know who someone is, for them to affect policies that have an effect on your life. As for the list of names that you think we should compare the worthiness of John Larney, I have never heard of any of them, and these are the so called people you are ok with. Also, the two examples I made the heads of the organizations, who hopefully you would even concede as being significant aren't even on your list for comparison. John Larney is active in a local lodge yes, but he is also active on a National level. As for the posters who think the 500 DSAs means they must not be all that important, because there are 500 of them, I must correct you. This is 500 people since 1940. There have been tens of thousands of people who have been in the Order of the Arrow, and even more in the Boy Scouts it self that do not have the award. It is the least likely award in the Order of the Arrow that you will recieve as a member. Finaly before I am bashed for this being my first post, I might add that I do use Wiki I just never bothered to type in it before. {unsigned vote by User:Oa164}


  • Comment if User:TheBill claims to know nothing about sock puppets, why on User_talk:Oa164 did he say "Hey. Who is this? Obviously don't reveal it here but IM me at tisq249. -TheBill Second Vice Chief Tisquantum Lodge OCC 249"? Kinda implies that he was expecting to find some people he knows signing up to vote here. Anyone fancy a meatpuppet? chowells 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course people who know TheBill are going to come on here. Gee is it so hard to believe that the same people that know John Larney and the same people who know TheBill are going to overlap in some cases. Do I know TheBill, yes I know who he is. Did he put me up to this, no. Kind of proven by his wanting to know who I was. Someone told me that this page existed and I thought cool I look at it. That someone wasn't TheBill. I then saw it was marked for deletion. I read the comments, I checked out the history of the page. And yes all on my own. If you read my earlier statement I would have dropped the article in a second do to the fact that it had a lot of stuff in it that was pure nonsense, and insulting to John Larney, but not because John Larney doesn't deserve a real mention. What is there now is a real article. A stub, yes, that can easily be expanded on.{unsigned comment by User:Oa164}
  • That is kinda creepy that you guys are watching my every move! I merely asked who he was because in the OA there is a sense of Brotherhood. In fact it is one of our three principles. Is it wrong to make new friends? Also, as you point out in the quote you took off the talk page, I am a lodge officer and have been active with the organization for years. I know a great many people. It could be someone I already knew. We have vast networks that allow arrowmen from across the country to meet but sometimes we get lost because there are thousands of miles between us. It could be a way to rekindle an old friendship. There are many arrowmen that I would not consider "friends". Get something better to do than yell "SOCK PUPPET" every time you find out I have a friend. Maybe some of you should invest in those. TheBill 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I move to have this discussion thrown out and start over as most of the delete votes are based on things that have either been fixed or discredited. The "nonsense" has been edited out. We are definately not sock puppets as some people continue to say. Vanity is not a reason to delete an article. Now it is a serious article that has the potential to be expanded upon. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My delete vote stands unless if some verifiable sources are provided for this infomation. The only source listed is "A History of Tisquantum Lodge," no ISBN number. I can find no mention of such a book on the internet, and I doubt my local library has it: this is not a valid source for an article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems someone has added varifiable sources. Thank you to user 209. Is this better? anything else we can do? Just say it and we shall do our best to include what you want. JesusSaves 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's have a look. Source One is http://www.destroyers.org/smrdd/USS_Brush.html. This appears to be essentially a messageboard where anyone can add info that they, relatives or friends served on the USS Brush. From this, we learn Mr. Larney's email address and that he is "selling real estate". This page, apparently editable by all the world, is not a reliable source for establishing facts about Mr. Larney. Source Two is http://www.ne1b.org/aboutus.php, a page about the Norheast region of the Order of the Arrow. It does establish that Mr. Larney was awarded a DSA, and that he has staffed Section NE-1B's National Leadership Seminar (NLS). So that's a step in the right direction, I have to agree. At this point, the legitimately sourced info in the article is the following: "John Larney is a leader in the Boy Scouts of America associated with Old Colony Council and in particular Tisquantum Lodge 164 (249). He has recieved the Distinguished Service Award, the highest and rarest award given in the Order of the Arrow. John Larney has staffed numerous Order of the Arrow training sessions, including Tisquantum Lodge's annual Lodge Leadership Development (LLD), and Section NE-1B's National Leadership Seminar (NLS)." Trimmed down to that little info, you have to admit that's a pretty small page for an Encyclopedia. And there's not much hope for expanding it, that I can tell. Still, good-faith efforts are being made, and if you want to trim this article down to such a level, I'll retract my Delete opinion. (I'll probably change it to an Abstain -- I still don't think the page establishes notability, which still counts for me.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ;Bunchofgrapes says "Trimmed down to that little info, you have to admit that's a pretty small page for an Encyclopedia". This has falls under Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We have room for just about everything. As for your claim that it does not have potential for expansion, how do you know that? Are you a John Larney expert? There is plenty more to say as soon as we find "acceptable" sources. Don't get me wrong, we strive for excellence. More will be added eventually. JesusSaves 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No indication that notability will be established by presenting added references for already-documented and relatively insignificant accomplishments. I encourage my fellow Boy Scouts to learn more about editing Wikipedia rather than waste time politicking here. Dystopos 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Trimmed down to that little info, you have to admit that's a pretty small page for an Encyclopedia. And there's not much hope for expanding it, that I can tell." I'd like to point out the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_90. This is a VERY short article about an obscure villain from an animé series. I just recently edited the article; it was less than half that length. Furthermore, there is almost no hope for the article to become any longer. Anyway, my point is that there is no outcry for the deletion of this article, yet there seems to be massive opposition to the existance of this article. How much sense does it make? 12.76.163.144 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pharaoh 90 should probably be merged into some other article, but that simply isn't the topic of discussion here. There isn't "massive opposition" and "outcry" here, we're just a handful of people trying to rationally discuss an article, and one — I would nicely remind you — that started out as an apparent joke. But since you've brought up Pharaoh 90, let me ask you a question: How many people, worldwide, do you think have heard of Pharaoh 90? Now, how many people, worldwide, do you think have heard of John Larney? I'd guess fewer, by a factor of thousands. That tells me something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The point is not whether you can find webpages that mention John Larney and identify him as a Boy Scout leader who used to be in the Navy. We could find webpages that identify me as a math teacher who used to live in Africa. That doesn't mean there should be a Wikipedia article about me. Even though, as a math teacher, I affect hundreds of people's lives, and have power over their education, grades, etc, that doesn't mean I get a Wikipedia article. None of that is the point. The point is this: AFTER other sources write about a topic, THEN Wikipedia gets to. That's the most succinct way I can think to say it. Wikipedia just isn't where the very first article written about someone should be. If some other news source does a story on John Larney and why he's interesting, then Wikipedia can cite that source, and he's in. Until then, no. The sources that have been provided (4 links so far) confirm that there is such a man, and that he is who you claim he is - great. They aren't pages about John Larney, nor are they evidence that some segment of the world considers him all that notable. I'm just as well documented online as John Larney is, (and much less so than Pharaoh 90). It's nothing against the guy, he just isn't a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Neither am I. GTBacchus 04:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gunna go out on a limb and say they'd about break even. I have certainly never heard of this Pharoah 90 fella before now. This would be an example of someone who is well know within thier own circut (anime watchers). To tell the truth I don't believe cartoon villans have a place in this encyclopedia as they affect absolutely nothing in the real world. That being said that is my personal opinion which I shall not try to oppose here because frankly I do not have the knowledge in this field to determine whether he is a major figure within that circut. I ask that those of you who have little to no knowledge of American Boy Scouting, or the Order of the Arrow specifically, to extend the same courtesy. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people of topics that they have little previous knowledge. the inclusion of this article definatly fits that descrition as none of you have this knowledge and we shall inform you if it. TheBill 04:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Captain Distains's comment on how the vast majority of Scout Leaders are not notable enough to be included, I agree. That is why I only nominate John Larney. If I was trying to nominate leaders who were not noteable I would nominate myself and TheBill. Sorry TheBill but you are not half as noteable as Larney no matter how much you think so. JesusSaves 04:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- just not notable. No evidence, despite this long discussion, that he is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. ManekiNeko | Talk 06:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is from a link given to user JesusSaves by someone here about the guidelines for a page:

Does lack of fame make a vanity article? An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Effectiveness of vanity articles Vanity posters may post with the motive of increasing their own personal fame, or recognition of some group they are a part of. For this purpose, vanity articles are relatively ineffective. Most vanity articles receive few hits per month until nominated for deletion, and are possibly only seen by the user who nominates one. A vanity poster could theoretically increase traffic to his or her page by adding more links to it, and this is sometimes done — but it may risk earlier deletion of the page.

There is nothing in this artcile that is trying to increase the personal fame of the topic. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named 18:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Not notable, but it's a close call. The obvious sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry certainly doesn't improve my opinion. -- SCZenz 23:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - discussed above. --MacRusgail 11:54, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — notability is difficult to ascertain here (the subject is mentioned on a few websites: 109 google hits for exact name). However, there is a connexion with a previous nn bio, and no other WP article links to John W. Gehring. --Gareth Hughes 14:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Gehring[edit]

The subject of this article does not appear to meet any of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. I believe this may also be related to the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hye Sung Gehring. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete I think we need to rewrtie the article. Rev. Gehring is a well respected person and a prominent figure in interfaith circles all around the world. We shouldn't completely remove the entire article.

--Cyril Thomas 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Run-of-the-mill pastor it seems. Toward the end it becomes very hard to follow. Marskell 11:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created by Sungis (talk · contribs), who is, according to xyr user page, Hye Sung Gehring (AfD discussion), this person's 12-year-old son. Sungis, editors can write about their relatives and friends in Wikipedia, but they have to be exceedingly careful and not all relatives and friends are suitable subjects for encyclopaedia articles. Writing about relatives and friends is very difficult to do, in that one has to be absolutely scrupulous about third-party sourcing and neutrality. Because of that I strongly recommend not doing it, especially if one is new to Wikipedia. Furthermore, we have criteria for inclusion of biographies, which a person has to satisfy before they warrant an encyclopaedia article about xem. Most people don't satisfy those criteria. (I have some relatives who do. I can write about them if I am exceedingly careful. I don't satisfy the criteria myself, however, and neither do many of my relatives.) Your father has not garnered any independently written articles about him, and thus does not satisfy those criteria. (Sun Myung Moon satisfies the criteria because he has multiple independently written biographies, news articles, and other published works about him.) Wikipedia is not a free wiki host for anyone to host web pages about people that they like, nor is it a vehicle for self-promotion. We have the goal of creating an encyclopaedia here. If you want somewhere to host web pages that you write about yourself and your family, please find an ISP that provides a web hosting service. Delete. Uncle G 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 12:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur as per Uncle G --Reflex Reaction 13:39, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all --Gareth Hughes 14:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kessor, Klysindel Lake, and Sherashlin Manor[edit]

Spinoffs of deleted article Siflige. —Cryptic (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advanity for a deleted computer RPG site. -- Corvus 03:31, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kid vicious[edit]

Delete Vanity. StephenJMuir 16:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. By the way, someone tagged it as {{nonsense}} which it is not. Punkmorten 19:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. May not be nonsense, but I guess the Kid has been to busy "wroting" songs to notice that he has stolen his name from a well-known Dutch DJ. --JJay 15:41, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leon McPherson[edit]

Musician with a very sketchy claim to fame. Not important enough for an entry. silsor 02:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 03:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . The article claims that he is playing Joseph in a West End production of Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat. I was not able to find any evidence of this via a Google search see [11] He was a contestant on Pop Idol but not a successful one with no evidence of a recording career afterwards. Capitalistroadster 04:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for now. I've had trouble finding full cast details for a lot of musicals so lack of google evidence doesn't prove a thing. I'd expect this to be easily verfiable by simply having a Londoner Wikipedian check with the theater it was performed in. - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Musician. Trollderella 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fails WP:MUSIC. -- Corvus 00:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. agree that it fails WP:MUSIC. --Reflex Reaction 13:35, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Light Christian Academy[edit]

Non-notable. Only 8 students, none (no less enough to make the school itself notable) are mentioned as having gone on do do anything particularly noteworthy, and none are noteworthy enough to even be mentioned by name. The method isn't particularly noteworthy, as it's mostly just A.C.E., which has its own article. If this school someday inspires many similar schools that are cumulatively different enough from other ACE schools and otherwise noteworthy, this one might then become notable as having been the first. But until and unless that happens, it's non-notable. Icarus 04:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nice article but VERY NN School that only have 8 students so that even makes it more nn --JAranda | watz sup 05:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at all costs. This well-written article is a perfect example of the dangers of subjectivist notability demands from "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete school articles". Number of students in an educational facility is clearly not a standard whereby we can determine the suitability of a school article. Is 30 students enough? 100? 1000? 4000?--Nicodemus75 08:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to abstain. I stand by my comment, however the "school" here is indeed unverifiable (the school under this name I found in the Philippines turns out to be a different institution, albeit almost equally small even though both are located in Quezon). An unverifiable school can't have an article just to make my point about numbers of students.--Nicodemus75 19:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm the person who nominated this article for deletion. For the record, I have never nominated or voted on any vfd for an article on a school (before this one, of course). So this isn't just a case of someone nominating school articles. --Icarus 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on lack of verifiability of information. I will change my vote if the problem is fixed. But, at the moment, it is to great to justify the article's existence. --rob 09:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still can't verify this "school", but based on this this It seems that "Light Christian Academy" is just a group of homeschoolers who are apart of the Florida based "Lighthouse Christian Academy" remote/distance "school" (which is part of the ACE organization). So, aside from being unverified, it doesn't even seem to be a separate "school". Of course, I can't verify this, or anything. --rob 10:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While a very small number of students may actually help a schools notability in my opinion, I'll have to vote delete based on it being unverifiable. A group of homeschooled people does not a school make either. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, vanity, non-notable, non-verifiable, stuff like this give school articles a bad name. --Isolani 13:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. ESkog | Talk 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and non-notable. The only Google are mirrors of it's current Wikipedia entry. Perhaps if a Wikipediean in the Philippines could supply a newspaper article?--inksT 20:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction: "nn room". No school is being deleted here. No proof a school exists has been shown. While I'm sure it's not another hoax, it's still not shown to be a school. --rob 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable and non-notable ... Now if only I could figure out what the hell it is Soltak | Talk 23:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something is produced to verify the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --Last Malthusian 10:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, ad. Xoloz 12:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gateman1997 00:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 00:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because an article does not have references doesn't mean its erroneous or made-up. User:Matthewprc 11:49, 19 October 2005
    • Sorry, but we can't have blind faith, and can't beleive things that are unproven, just because somebody makes a claim. Unverifiability alone is grounds for deletion. But, I feel it's now been verified almost proven that this organization does *not* exist as an official school based on the government's master list. --rob 04:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second reading, I can't prove 100% this thing doesn't exist as a licenced school, though I don't think I have to. --rob 04:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, now I just learned that NCR means National Capital Region, and Quezon City (though no longer the capital) is apart of it. The above "master list" only lists NCR schools. But, presumabely that aught to include this one. --rob 05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't nominate it for being unverifiable, I nominated it for being non-notable. Even if it could be proven that every single fact in the article was absolutely true, I'd still have nominated it on the grounds stated at the top of this page/section (depending on how you're reading it). --Icarus 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified/unverifiable --redstucco 09:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Al-Andalus 14:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of common South Park slang[edit]

Delete — it's just yet another collection of slang words of which we have plenty already. None of the words are original to South Park, nor can any reasonably claim to have been popularised by it. The list is just a happenstance crossover between two unrelated topics. -Splashtalk 00:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was about to nominate this but got d/c and forgot --JAranda | watz sup 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DVDA isn't even South Park slang --Anetode 01:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 02:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. tregoweth 02:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Most of these words have articles of their own. This list serves no purpose. -Haon 03:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Haon CLW 09:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Mpeisenbr 01:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it can be incredibly cleaned up. Josh October 19, 2005, 11:39 PM EST
  • Delete per nom. Zig 05:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Saberwyn 02:58, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Actually I can be considered tall, because I'm 6 of your "feet" and 1 of your "inches". — JIP | Talk 16:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous tall men[edit]

Insignificant, will be permanently incomplete 165.123.152.196 08:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What are the criteria for tall or for famous? Is a tall Hottentot a small Masai? Dlyons493 Talk 10:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain apparently 6.0 feet is the criterion for size. But it's hopelessly POV as there's no metric equivalent given and it immediately exludes people relatively long within their race which happens to be small. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We already have Category:People with gigantism. Punkmorten 19:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Dlyons, categories are subjective. --MacRusgail 20:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess it's listcruft weekend. MCB 04:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective list without sufficient criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 13:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - far from the wierdest list we have, and a list of unusually tall men is not beyond being useful. Trollderella 19:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Trollderella. Denni☯ 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep list of people with notable property..  Grue  14:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ill-defined. 6 feet was tall in the Dark Ages, but is nothing special today. --Ashenai (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not add value to wikipedia --redstucco 09:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve. I'd suggest modeling after the List of famous tall women and start at around 6'3" for tall criteria. --Fallout boy 10:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand a good idea so far poorly implented, Fallout boy's suggestion is noteworthy.
  • Keep but change criteria. Fallout boy's suggestion is a good one. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo Revolution backwards games[edit]

It isn't that this list is unmaintainable. It is that it is completely pointless! For those of you who don't know, the Revolution will be fully backwards compatible from Day One. All Nintendo games from the NES, SNES, and N64 will be downloadable, while there will be a sperate slot for Gamecube discs. The Revolution article covers this, and there is no need to list it out. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I was pretty certain that NOT all games from yesteryear will be downloadable, myself... in which case a list would be handy. I say we move it to List of Old Nintendo Games for Nintendo Revolution, or something to that effect, and expand with that list of 221 games that was in... was it Famitsu? Not entirely sure, but I know SOME list came out a while ago. --Shadow Hog 14:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I seem to recall a fake list that was supposedly from Famitsu making the rounds. I could be thinking of something else, and it's possible Famitsu later had a real list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Right now, it's sourceless. And I anticipate that a massive back catalog will be available, it will probably become unmaintainable. Another thing, is the crystal ball, I'd rather wait till the revolution comes out and announcements made about the range of the back catalog before creating an encyclopedia article. - Hahnchen 14:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever else, the crystal ball argument is convincing. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal ball. the wub "?!" 22:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unmaintainable list and unsourced speculation. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - The reliability of this article in the future is high enough to keep it going and it gives an idea of what games are probable for download on the Revolution. Postponing it or placing it aside for later use would be a good idea, seeing as time will come when an article like this will be needed for access by the general public. Though, the article title itself is pointless because "List of Nintendo Revolution backwards games" isn't descriptive enough of the subject, which is speaking of the games (at this moment, possible) for download. The correct title should be "List of Backwards Compatible titles for the Nintendo Revolution". In that sense, whomever should delete this article, but reserve the development of "List of Backwards Compatible titles for the Nintendo Revolution" until needed. I might not be someone who actively creates and corrects articles on this site, but I am wise enough to speak of and know that this is the best possible decision for this case, which has no future but will have a present. Metal gameboy 14:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reliability of this article in the future is high enough to keep it going and it gives an idea of what games are probable for download on the Revolution.
      Then this is certainly speculation, and should be deleted. I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. (Even if it was, I don't see any clear criteria for this list; how is Nintendo going to publish games for which the license for the licensed property has expired, as with the Indiana Jones games and Goldeneye 007?) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP!!!! So technically, this could be considered speculation, however, not every last Nintendo game will be avaliable, according to a list based on a message by a Nintendo staff member listing all the games that will be; but from what I've seen, the list is almost exclusively first-party games. Furthermore, I know of multiple first-party games that I don't see on this list. Unless there is an article listing each and every game that was released directly by Nintendo, we need to label this as being about future products or maybe merge it in a way with the main Nintendo Revolution article. Plus, shouldn't we name the few third-party games avaliable for download? Furthermore, there is some concrete information in this article and it should not be thrown away without doing anything first. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT delete this until you can confirm that it serves no purpose whatsoever. Oklonia 04:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read WP:NOT and WP:NOR? Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing speculation or predictions or "reasonable guesses". Until Nintendo makes an announcement, this is pure speculation, and is as such not appropriate for Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable at this point. -Sean Curtin 22:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per A Man In Black. Saberwyn 03:11, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that use the same rhyme throughout[edit]

What subtrivial listcruft!

  • Delete as it is not encyclopedic nor it may never expand to be encyclopedic. (unsigned comment from anon)
  • Delete as long as it doesn't even establish criteria for what constitutes a rhyme. Quote: perhaps anything with a long I rhymes with anything else with a long I according to the lyricist's standards Punkmorten 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - listcruft --MacRusgail 20:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clear criteria, and has the potential to become nothing more than hopelessly unmaintainable trivia. Saberwyn 09:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 13:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it's been around for a long time and is mantained in a good shape.  Grue  14:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite criteria to make it clearer and therefore a good article. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:50, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 14:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars Battles[edit]

Wikipedia not the place for this, there is a Star Wars Wikipedia Gator1 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft. tregoweth 02:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list serves a practical purpose as long as the individual battles are catalogued at wikipedia (a la Battle of Hoth). --Anetode 02:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to delete per Kirill --Anetode 03:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, deprecated by Category:Star Wars battles. Kirill Lokshin 03:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Clay Collier 06:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancruft isn't a valid reason for deletion and a lot of Star Wars material may belong in Wikipedia. Only the most trivial of information should be dropped or moved to a star wars Wiki. Battles are a major part of the Star Wars Universe. That said, this list doesn't do anything the cat already does. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I dont like it at all, but if this is NN than all articles concerning SW battles ought to be put up for deletion as well (and that aint gonna happen), deleting a mere list wont make much difference materially. --Isolani 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind delete category can fill in for this page --Isolani 13:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Private Butcher 22:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't object to the list in principle, but since it isn't really adding anything to the individual battles, then categories should be fine. --Jacquelyn Marie 00:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior comments. With George Lucas re-doing these movies and re-re-re-releasing "special editions" every few years, who says the battles are going to remain the same anyway? Jtmichcock 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. If someone more knowledgeable than I am about Star Wars rewrite this into a timeline, or even an alphabetically-sorted list with short summaries of each battle, or otherwise made this not entirely redundant with the cat, I'd happily change my vote. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kirill. Xoloz 12:42, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge — redirects are cheap, and the content can be easily merged into Mafia (game). If we deleted this, it would be easily recreated. --Gareth Hughes 14:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mafiascum[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable website. -- Kjkolb 08:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more comment. Rx StrangeLove 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Out of Process. The consensus is to delete, however the {{afd}} template was never added to the article page, therefore will need to be re-nominated. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malevolent Alien Abduction Research[edit]

Delete or Merge - the organization cited is real, though its basically an amateurs' website for people who think they've been abducted. This may be ineligible for Wikipedia under the "No Original Research" rule. It could be merged with an alien abduction page, but I don't think its notable enough for its own page. Also the content needs to be fixed. Bwithh 21:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Dystopos 01:57, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — I know enough about football to see this article is nonsense. --Gareth Hughes 15:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Moore[edit]

hoax. No relevent google hits for Marc-Moore Highfield. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Goals Total 1997-2005: 1755" is a giveaway. Goals in football (soccer in the US) are quite rare, and even an attack player won't usually score more than about 40 goals a year, and that is really quite many. Would expect a $11.25M dollar player to be easy to find on Google, but I still cannot find him. Finally, the Carolina Dynamo roster is here and there is no "Marc Moore" on it. Clearly a hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Highfield is a venue, not a league winning club. Moriori 20:39, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -R. fiend 14:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Damron[edit]

Anon vanity entry. Utterly fails to establish notability. Probable speedy candidate. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as there's no reasonable assertion of notability. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Makes no claim to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute speedy. Textbook A7. Doing it now. -R. fiend 14:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Elam[edit]

Vanity for nonnotable musician. tregoweth 02:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gator1 02:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity. "...with his brother Shoeless Joe Boldensmith..." may indicate a hoax. Marskell 11:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity article--Reflex Reaction 13:31, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — I think my minimum criterion for articles about a website is that they link to the site in the question. --Gareth Hughes 15:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmcafe[edit]

  • Delete this is a stub entry on a non-notable video game fan chat site. Effectively advertising, as the entry amounts to repeating the site's slogan Bwithh 16:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI was thinking in creating a full fledged entry to wikipedia about mmcafe little by little.

To say MMcafe is a non-notable videogame fan site is slanderous. Mmcafe is a news site first, and then a videogame community second. But if this is still considered for deletion, then I won't object about it.

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

The result of the debate was Keep — make something of this article then. --Gareth Hughes 15:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modifed.ca[edit]

Non-notable chat group on footbag (hacky sack). Alexa has no information. Walter Siegmund 08:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I shouldn't have listed this as an AfD. The title was a typographical error, hence no information on Google or Alexa. I moved it to Modified.ca and cleaned it up. I'm sorry for the page clutter. -Walter Siegmund 16:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Move to Mordecai Lincoln. Physchim62 20:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai lincoln[edit]

I tagged this for speedy under A7, since IMO being Abraham Lincoln's uncle is not an assertion of notability. Another editor disagreed, so I'm bringing it here. My vote remains speedy delete as an article about a real person that does not assert notability. Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I apologise if I'm wrong but I thought it better to go through AfD rather than to do a questionable speedy under A7 - the most contentious of them all. No vote. --Celestianpower hablamé 20:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First let me say I agree completely that this should be AfD not speedy. This is illustrated by the following: Keep and move to correct capitalization. His house has historical significance and is featured on the front of the Springfield, KY homepage: [12]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with keep and move to Mordecai Lincoln. Granted not every uncle of every dead president needs an article, but this guy did build a house that is in the National Registry of Historic Places. I have created the Mordecai Lincoln page. Once this AfD vote is established, either both can be deleted or a redirect can be put up at Mordecai lincoln. --Gaff talk 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kzollman.  BD2412 talk 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discovered Mordecai through my own genealogical research. He was a leader of the Catholic community in frontier Kentucky. The fact that Lincoln grew up in this community appears to be virtually unknown to historians, and may bear on several aspects of Lincoln's career. I am working up to writing this obscure history. The first step is to identify Mordecai. At some point I would reference him into the article about Abe.M dorothy 02:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every uncle of every President is not notable, but this is Lincoln. As a once-aspiring American History academic, I submit that there has probably been scholarship written on every Lincoln relative known to exist. Xoloz 13:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to proper capitalization. However, if there really is "scholarship written on every Lincoln relative known to exist," perhaps at some point, when we have enough information about others, we can merge and redirect all of said relatives, just to keep things tidy. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relatives of presidents are notable, and this one is particularly. Academic Challenger 08:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Godfrey[edit]

Nicholas Godfrey does not appear to be one of the widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers that would qualify according to Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, i.e., he is not notable in the sense of Wikipedia. Moreover, the content is minimal. Walter Siegmund 06:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's more than enough content in the article to merit keeping, if the subject is notable and verifiable. It is however not, so delete. --fvw* 06:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this even here? Speedy delete under A7 (no assertion of notability). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching on his name with either trek or dub indicates that he is not "a sensation on the internet". --GraemeL (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bind to yourself with hoops of steel Nicholas Godfrey changed my life, for the better. He has the same surname as Private Godfrey out of TV's Dad's Army sitcom show. And he's funny, even if he was a conshie. I'm glad the Star trek community have disowned him. Star Trek is for girls, sa I. Fatbadger 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete Private Butcher 22:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. (What is an "international citizenship", anyway, and how do I get one?) MCB 04:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's what I'm thinking of, you just renounce whatever national citizenship you currently hold. This makes it hard to cross borders, though, so I'd advise against it. -Colin Kimbrell 21:01, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Painter" John Lowe[edit]

I can't find any reliable information about a wrestler with this name (maybe I'm missing something). If he does exist, there seem to be more notable people called John Lowe (like this world darts champion, this medical doctor, or this musician, to name a few). Karol 10:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if this pro wrestler is real, this article reads too much like an advertisement. I have never been able to understand the American obsession with pro wrestling anyway. Did anyone ever tell you it's all fake? — JIP | Talk 14:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Realy?!? ;) Karol 15:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite. Contains too much pov. I'm having difficulty verifying his existence as well. If he does exist and is sufficiently notable, completely rewrite to eliminate/reduce pov. If he doesn't, delete the article. Cool3 17:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 06:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, not verifiable  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found him and he seems to be a real professional wrestler, but probably not notable enough yet for mention on Wikipedia. Even if he were, the article's not an encyclopedia article. It reads like promoter-speak. TECannon 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Murata[edit]

I know this guy, but I have to say I don't think he's notable yet. The whole second paragraph looks to be nonsense. — Laura Scudder | Talk 06:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 'performance enhancing drugs' for an "Impedance Matching Championship"? Possible hoax, non-notable. --Clay Collier 06:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Found nothing on Google. Walter Siegmund 07:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wiki for this person is absolutely true. You can email him yourself to verify (that is, if you really know him, you'll have his email address).
Because Mudd alumni addresses are so hard to remember. And if you're User:Jcchou you know that, seeing as how he graduated the same year as proctor Paul.
Really we're interested in how verifiable it is. If you have any confirming references, feel free to come forward with them. — Laura Scudder | Talk 17:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only claim for notability for this bio is finishing "as runner-up in the National Impedence Matching Championships (NIMC)". Googling for "Impedence Matching Championships" or similar, returns no results. So... nn-bio. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. MCB 04:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

do NOT delete: how does it lack significance? he was runner-up in the prestigious National Impedance Matching Championships for 4 years running!

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. For the record, I was the one who originally speedied it. If it is still found worthy of inclusion it can be undeleted again. — JIP | Talk 17:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penis-showing game[edit]

This was speedied but restored by VfU, with a mandate that it be immediately listed here. So here it is. -Splashtalk 16:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or maybe smerge with the film. Is there any evidence of this being played or even discussed outside of the film? -R. fiend 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no proof that the game exists outside the film and even if it did, it would be played by so few people that it would be non-notable. Also such detailed information on this scene doesn't seem appropriate to merge with the film's article. -- Kjkolb 17:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Waiting (film) --MacRusgail 20:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis? the wub "?!" 23:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I created this article after seeing the movie and talking to friends who had played it before the movie had come out. Since originally deleted I have put more research into the phenomenon and as long as the page survives I promise to keep improving it. The game was originally created in the military (which is extremely interesting considering the "don't as, don't tell" policy.) I agree that most pop-culture is unencyclopaedic, but when it becomes a widely recognized part of culture the threshold of notability is crossed. This game has many particpants and even more who know of it, but don't play. A simple google search will reveal as much. I know it is crude/nonsense/offensive, but none of these take away from the fact that it should be considered knowledge. Instead of thinking that something shouldn't be in an encyclopedia because you don't know it, think that it should be in so people like you can learn about it. The benefit to Wiki is that anyone can contribute and it is fluidly updated every second. This could take years to make it into print, but in the mean time people will get their information from here. This is not vandalism, it is education and free speech. MacAllah 23:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per kjKolb. Dottore So 06:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability other than as a device in a specific film. MCB 07:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V. encephalon 18:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pistolas[edit]

Delete; hoax, joke, or mock dicdef, and unencyclopedic nonsense. See also AfD for Pistolos and AfD for Cinco de Ocho, articles by same author (Mastab) the latter also featuring nonsense about "pistolas" and "pistolos". MCB 05:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There really ought to be a CSD category for obvious attempts at lame jokes. --Clay Collier 06:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if cleaned up, this would be a mere dicdef. Rossami (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the uneducated re-posts of what you have already stated. Next time, please contribute comments that contain substance. Mastab 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with fire and napalm. This is ridiculous. I'm leaning towards starting a discussion on CSDs for this too.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pistolas in Spanish means Guns but WP:NOT a Spanish Translation Dictonary --JAranda | watz sup 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* This post has clear merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.49.203 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pistol --Anetode 21:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. the wub "?!" 22:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I also believe that the article itself should be touched up some. I unfortunately do not have the time or I would take it upon myself. Such issue's as the direct translation to which Aranda alerted us should be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastab (talk • contribs) 2005-10-16 16:26
  • Delete, then possibly redirect to prevent recreation. Xoloz 12:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page --Leo


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pistolos[edit]

Delete hoax, joke, or mock dicdef, and unencyclopedic nonsense. See also AfD for Pistolas, AfD for Cinco de Ocho, articles by same author (Mastab), the latter also featuring nonsense about "pistolas" and "pistolos". MCB 05:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete see Pistolas above. --Clay Collier 06:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if cleaned up, this would be a mere dicdef. Rossami (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing as Pistolo's originated from the creation story of Cinco de Ocho, I do not see how you can possibly identify it as factually inaccurate. Would anyone care to elaborate on the reasoning behind this nomination? Mastab 17:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do we need to go through all the reasons why?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete now this is clear nonsense --JAranda | watz sup 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pistol. Also, this page was vandalized by Amdahlj (talk · contribs) [13] --Anetode 21:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the Spanish form of Pistol is pistola. --Clay Collier 07:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. the wub "?!" 22:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until Conclusion of Seperate Debate As Pistolo's first entry was to explain the meaning behind Pistolo's as used in the article Cinco de Ocho it is only ift that this debate cease until the conclusion of the debate of Cinco de Ocho. Personally, it undermines people's right to information when people delete such articles as that. All it is attempting to do is establish a precedent for the culture and history behind the day of celebration Mastab 01:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if Cinco de Ocho isn't deleted (which is currently looking unlikely), this article seems to have no potential for expansion. A decision on this article can be made independent of the fate of the Cinco de Ocho article. --Clay Collier 07:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then possibly redirect to prevent recreation. Xoloz 12:49, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Property Specification Language[edit]

User:Aranda56 wanted to renominate this. He didn't know how so I'm starting this off. He can fill out the reason himself. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 04:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first nom I have my doubts about that closing of the first nomination with 4 deletes 1 weak keep and 1 keep so Im relisting and for the same reasons for the first nomination Delete --JAranda | watz sup 04:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend that this nomination be procedurally closed and that a request be made to submit the original discussion to Deletion Review (which, for now, still uses the VfU page and process). The original discussion had 4 clear "delete"s and 2 "keep"s, one self-described as "weak". The concerns raised about the verifiability of the content were never successfully addressed by either "keep" voter. It was closed by Rich Farmbrough as "keep" without further explanation. If we do not choose to make the procedural move, I must argue to delete this article unless and until someone can present specific evidence addressing the concerns raised by Gtabary and DESiegel during the first discussion. Rossami (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rossami above. If not taken to Deletion Review, delete for the same reasons as listed before. DES (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Am I missing something? See e.g. [14] Dlyons493 Talk 10:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Thv's edit on October 11th identified the IEEE standard for this language: thus Gtabary and DESiegel's specific concerns were in fact answered in full five days before Rossami's request above that they be addressed, were they not? Haeleth 19:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I don't see any reason to delete short, but good article. --Thv 07:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thv. Trollderella 19:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I really don't see what the problem is with this.--Mpeisenbr 01:14, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psi Abilities[edit]

Non-verifiable original research. There's also no context provided- no statement of who believes these things or why. POV is also rife- the views on religion and spirituality seem to be those of the primary author alone, rather than an attempt to document the beliefs of any notable group or movement. Clay Collier 06:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Clay Collier 06:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Walter Siegmund 07:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly POV meanderings. Moriori 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patent nonsense --StoatBringer 09:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense Logophile 12:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably author's personal beliefs, which have no place on Wikipedia except for author's user page, definitely original research, POV and soapbox rant. Aecis 16:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parapsychology. This is a very conceivable search term. Meelar (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I'm a fan of redirects, but this one is of questionable value since ESP is at least as likely as parapsychology. Xoloz 12:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Psi abilities, setting aside that they don't exist, are construed as not just ESP but also telekinesis, clairvoyance, and astral travel. That's more general than ESP but not as general as parapsychology, which includes things like ghosts, auras and past lives. I think a delete leaves room for someone to create an article at the appropriate level of detail, with links to parapsychology and ESP and whatever else, that would be coherent and have NPOV. TECannon 05:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per nom --Reflex Reaction 13:39, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

There is a consensus to keep the article. encephalon 19:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Metal[edit]

This is just original research by an anon IP and already includes information in the more acurate articles of Thrashcore Grindcore Thrash metal Crust punk Stoner metal Metalcore . Punk metal is hardly ever used to describe a bands genre and the more accurate terms are calling a band heavy metal and hardcore punk. JobE6 00:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC) I propose a merge with Crossover thrash which as the creator says is a synonym for punk metal and is more acceptable. JobE6 20:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete vote. Needs references. I can't speak to content--FloNight 02:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the above comment is just rediculous. I'm not even sure if the above user read the article, because if he did he would see clearly that Crust Punk is a subgenre of Punk Metal and that Thrash and Grindcore are related, but not considered part of Punk Metal. The term Punk Metal is widely used in the USA today in place of the old term Crossover, which has no meaning to the genre anymore. To say otherwise would show a lack of understanding of the history and future of the Punk Metal genre. Rocknrollfanatic 01:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Gator1 02:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep real genre of music: documented at [15], used by bands to describe their sound [16] [17], by music journalists in album reviews[18], by music stores [19] [20], etc. Needs some cleaning up and a clarification of its standing in the genre/subgenre hierarchy. --Anetode 02:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those site incorrectly label some bands punk metal which are hardly even any of the genres above. Spun.com lists Atreyu (Screamo, Metalcore), Death by Stereo (who arent even remotely metal), Murderdolls (barely metal, more like Horror punk) and the Misfits (Clearly Horror Punk) as being Punk Metal. The Murderdolls like i said are purely Horror Punk and maybe Shock rock.

Keep, It surely needs clean up but I'd say it's good enough to stay. -Haon 03:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allmusic.com is a very reliable source and if they define it as a legitimate genre that's good evidence as far as I am concerned. User Anetode and I have provided a number of sources as to the existence and notability of this genre. What evidence do you have from sources that it is not a important genre. There are 652,000 Google results for "punk metal" see [22] so it is a widely used term. Capitalistroadster 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic is not always the most reliable or accurate. They label Led Zeppelin, Blue Oyster Cult, Def Leppard and Bon Jovi as heavy metal. Their music is not necessarily heavy metal but hard rock. Under Post harcore they list Helmet as a band which is also a mislabel. Under rap-rock they list Californication as a major album, even though it is one of the Chili Peppers few albums that do NOT containt rap style vocals. Basically allmusic is not the "if it says it then it must be true" source. JobE6 15:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I second that: they even label King Diamond as death metal. Spearhead 20:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jobe I think you're forgetting the old uses of HM. Go back to the sixties and seventies, and you'll find "punk" was used for Blondie, and HM for Led Zeppelin. Some even say LZ was the first metal band, although Steppenwolf introduced the term, and LZ, Cream and Hendrix all contributed. As for Def Leppard, and Bon Jovi. I wouldn't call BJ (!) HM, but Def Leppard would count as a sort of Pop Metal part of the NWOBHM, with the right riffs, and also certain subject matter (one of the original definitions of HM) including sex, violence, and the Apocalypse. Whether they're any good, well I'll let you decide! --82.109.88.66 19:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A band does not necesserily belong to only one genre. Your assertion that Corrosion of Conformity are hardcore punk may well be correct, but a case could also be made for them being Punk Metal. Either way, deleting a whole article because you disagree with parts of it is rather gratuitious. Everyone is welcome to alter the classification of various bands mentioned, and disagreements about such taxonomy should be discussed at the article's talk page. --Anetode 08:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I rarely use the term myself, but is applied to and appropriately befits some NWOBHM bands. 06:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. If kept, the article should be moved to Punk metal for correct and consistent capitalisation. CLW 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense genre as per nom. Spearhead 09:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it with crossover thrash is a good option to me as well Spearhead 14:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and Anetode. Allmusic.com is a reliable source. Calling it nonsense with this kind of references as evidence is just plain POV against music genre articles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it could use some cleanup. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in agreement with CLW. Punkmorten 18:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - however as a splintered genre, most of the article should be taken up with the various other hybrid offshoots of which there are many e.g. Grunge, Hardcore Punk, Speed Metal etc --MacRusgail 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 19:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real music genre. Trollderella 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is used as a real music genere, but cleanup. Prodego talk 15:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q.BATi[edit]

Article itself claims that this software has been in "planning" for three years and is unlikely to ever be released. Most Google hits for "q.bati" are either irrelevant or Wikipedia mirrors. I propose that this article be deleted; a proper article can be introduced if/when the software is ever released. Psychonaut 19:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this project is ever released it will get a page. -- Corvus 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The program in question doesn't even really exist. -- Captain Disdain 21:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --JJay 03:10, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real Dayton BDSM Support Group[edit]

This was initially speedy-deleted. The speedy-deletion is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#October 15. In the meantime, one of the authors re-created the article. It probably did not fit the deliberately narrow cases for a CSD but there are serious concerns about the notability of this group and the inherent lack of verifiability. I can find no independent evidence that a group by this specific name exists (see for example [23]), though a prior version of the article did include a link to this site which has a similar name. As a side note, that site is either new enough or small enough that it does not even have an alexa listing. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does Not qualify for a speedy delete, but unless additional evidecne of notability and additional encyclopedic content is provided delete as non-notable and as a stub with no potential. DES (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not a speedy. Of course, certainly not a keep either. Delete as non notable and difficult to easily verify. Lord Bob 07:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is at the least the THIRD time this article has been put back after being deleted.Gator1 13:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not a speedy, however. Non-notable. Xoloz 16:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some reliable sources are provided to verify that this is more than a very small group with limited influence. --Allen3 talk 16:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. android79 19:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Allen3. (One wonders what happened to the Fake Dayton BDSM Support Group.) MCB 04:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Sounds like a notable BDSM support group, but the current contents are useless. If someone rewrites this I might change my vote. — JIP | Talk 10:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopedic, not notable - Tεxτurε 14:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, though not a speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 19:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and replace by reflection (physics), which is where the article redirected to before. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reflected[edit]

Obscure, nn band hoping to get signed.


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 20:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Washington[edit]

A third-base coach isn't notable enough in my opinion. Simesa 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable - only 24 Google hits on 'Ronald Washington' + 'Oakland Athletics'. he is mentioned in the forum www.baseball-fever.com but hs is described as "mostly a benchwarmer". Eddie.willers 20:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. OK, so a google search using 'Ron Washington' returns more hits but I submit he is still non-notable as a player and coach. Eddie.willers 20:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Comment - seems I may have been too hasty in casting a delete vote as per my research as others have now come forward with enough new information for me to justifiably now declare a Keep. Eddie.willers 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--by precedent, professional players in major sports leagues are notable. Apparently had a decade-long career in Major League Baseball. Meelar (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable as professional baseballer with a 12 year career. Article should focus more on his baseball career and needs to be wikified. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, notable MLB player and coach. (He didn't get the A's manager job, though; Ken Macha's contract was renewed.) MCB 07:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did some cleanup and wikified; I think it looks reasonable now. Please feel free to add player stats; I'm not an expert on sources for those. MCB 18:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel bad; he's still a candidate for the Marlins' job. -Colin Kimbrell 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear precedent for pro players. Xoloz 13:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the existing precedent for professional players in major sports leagues. While Google can be helpful to establish the notability or verifiability of a subject, it is not always perfect or the most ideal way to do so. Hall Monitor 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is way more notable than most of the current player that are added today, such as Nate Field. I think we need to deal with those articles before considering deleting articles about fairly significant players with over 1500 at bats. TrafficBenBoy 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and if you want to verify info on professional baseball people, I'd recommend contacting the Society for American Baseball Research. Among other things, Washington is the man who broke Cal Ripken's record streak of consecutive innings played, when he replaced Ripken as a pinch-runner. -Colin Kimbrell 21:19, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rozabal[edit]

Hungarian. Has been listed on WP:PNT since 1 October. Physchim62 11:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very few hits even in Hungarian. Something to do with Jesus? and autism?? Dlyons493 Talk 17:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --JJay 01:39, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.F.E. and The A.M.I.S. Principle[edit]

By the same author as Real Dayton BDSM Support Group - see above. My vote is actually abstain - it is just that I am beginning to get fed up with Gator1's over-enthusiastic use of speedy tags. I have asked him to give his reasons here. -- RHaworth 10:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. I don't see this as a Speedy if that's the issue. In what category? Dlyons493 Talk 10:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is either identical to or VERY much like the Real Dayton BDSM Support Group (which is back AGAIN) that has been speedy deleted numerous times.Gator1 13:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't look speedy unless via g4 g5 or a8. --JJay 01:24, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safeline[edit]

Vanityish article, written by a kid who's dad works at Safeline Cloveious 00:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Apparently, Safeline is the world's largest supplier of metal detectors and may be notable enough to warrant an article see [24]. This article is not it. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be willing to withdraw the nomination if there is a consensus this could be a good article, or even make a decent stub --Cloveious 01:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has potential and is notable.Gator1 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing worth keeping here. I was willing to start a rewrite with some info pulled from web sources, but I found at least 4 different "Safeline" companies/services:
    • [www.safelinewarwick.co.uk] SAFELINE; For adult survivors of sexual abuse
    • [www.safeline.co.uk] Safeline Metal Detection; world leading manufacturer of digital metal detection and rejection systems
    • [www.safeline.com] SAFELINE®; Simulator hardware and software for instrument pilot training.
    • [www.safelinekids.com] Safeline Kids; formor distributor of the Sit’n’Stroll.
Let someone with some source to reference start the article fresh. --A D Monroe III 02:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto above. Just start it over. -Haon 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A D Monroe III. --Icarus 04:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bragging and advertising.=Levarro
  • Delete vanity and nn. *drew 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing we need to keep. In the future somebody can make an English Mettler-Toledo to go with de:Mettler-Toledo (which could include a section on Safeline). And, when that's done, Safeline can be a disambig page (mentioning various uses). But, since nobody is likely to do that any time soon, we might as well just delete this for now. --rob 07:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity; a useful article can always be recreated later - in the meantime this serves no purpose CLW 09:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps re-name to avoid ambiguity with other outfits of the same name. From their website (so take with a grain of salt): "Currently Safeline supply over 6,000 machines annually throughout the world. This represents a total of around 25%." This meets WP:CORP criteria. And remember "needs clean-up or expansion" is not a valid delete reason. Marskell 11:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Obviously a cleanup is also in order -- but that's not the point of this page; take it to cleanup instead. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cleanup applies when there's some good parts to preserve. Deleting certainly applies here, when there are no good parts. --A D Monroe III 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure what you mean by "no good parts." Factual, verifiable and appears to meet WP:CORP. Marskell 16:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect prior comments are mainly refering to the original content which said only "SafeLine is owned by Mettler Toledo. How do i know? My Dad works at SafeLine Metal Detection!". I took out the dad reference, and put in the external link; but really there's still nothing there. Please, note, you and anybody is completely free to make an article after deletion. This AFD is just about the one-sentence article. A complete article, even a complete stub would be welcome. This isn't yet even a complete stub. Also, as noted above, Safeline is not a separate company, but a division of a larger one. --rob 20:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid stub. Kappa 18:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the company exists. That's all that matters. Kurt Weber 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, not exactly. WP:CORP is rarely invoked but the guidelines there are quite clear and I think this meets them as noted above. Only the second time I'd looked at it. Marskell 20:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, policy is irrelevant anyway. One should act based on what policy should be, not what it is. Kurt Weber 00:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. Someone remind never to vote for this fellow if he winds up on RfA. Marskell 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • LOL! Try telling that to the cop next time you get pulled over for speeding! Denni☯ 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is/ought fallacy. Just because you might not be able to get away with something doesn't mean it's not right. Kurt Weber 22:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • And just because you feel something is right doesn't mean you should act on it. Your comment above is in invitation to unilateralism. If acted on individually, Wiki, very obviously, would not work. Marskell 10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Marskell, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Judging from the reaction to Kurt's Last RFA, there's slim-to-no chance of him ever making a serious bid at admin. Of course, that could be explained by the opinion that consensus in a shield for the weak (or something else from the Amazon review of Atlas Shrugged). --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: On second thought, there's nothing worth keeping, but nothing needing to be deleted either. If the article is moved, expanded, and this name is used as a disambig, that's fine with me. Since we're talking about one sentence of content, it is really no big deal either way. --rob 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 21:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stubbified This is now a perfectly valid stub about a clearly notable topic. Unfocused 17:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 19:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep slightly notable.--Bkwillwm 06:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Dupuis[edit]

another non-notable band using Wikipedia Gator1 01:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 01:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Website is not a band promotion; rather, it is the fictional biography of a "band" that appears in a recurring sketch comedy skit out of New Milford, CT. Sarahdupuis 01:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the director/editor of said skit, and these characters have more heart and moxy than anybody I've ever met, and just because they're not Slipknot or 2gether or Reel Big Fish doesn't mean they shoiuld be deleted. This is America. We have free speach.

  • Comment I've written a few of SD's sketches, seen peoples faces light up watching them, and know all of the players quite well. I agree with Bruce, this is America, they have as much right to be up here as all the 'notable' bands do.Amibeing2rural4u 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Band name gets lots of Google hits for various women with that name, but no band. Band name linked to band members' names gets zero Google hits. No claim to notability in the article. Unverifiable, and, based on above, probable hoax. --A D Monroe III 02:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one is saying that these guys aren't nice people, full of heart and moxie, but that doesn't mean they're significant to the world at large. If that sounds mean, tough -- most of us aren't significant, and Wikipedia doesn't exist to help everyone pretend that everyone has an equally big impact on the world. (And besides, this is not America; Wikipedia is an international project.) -- Captain Disdain 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax, see Aileen Wuornos. If it was intended as a description of a fictional work, that should have been written in the first sentence, however from the comments above this is not even a published work of any kind, just an element of a skit from a local stand-up comedy routine, not particularly notable or even verifiable. -- Curps 03:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. 24.151.79.23 03:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Wikipedia is not a web host for someone's comedy schtick. MCB 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Heart, moxie, and lighting up faces are not encyclopedic criteria. --Clay Collier 06:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not influential, and free speech does not mean free web hosting. Average Earthman 09:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. And not helped by the "This is America" comments! CLW 10:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. Robinson[edit]

Vanity article by the author of a single book that doesn't seem to appear on amazon. -R. fiend 16:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the press is a vanity press and, unless this person is very versitile, has no google scholar references [25]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above Bwithh 21:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity. --JJay 14:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unimportaant book. 70.110.14.98 19:36, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scrotasm[edit]

In the light of the results of Googling this word, and in the absence of any cites given, this looks like orginal research at best, and a hoax at worst. Propose: Delete unless a cite is given and independently confirmed. -- The Anome 15:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Wikiacc (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shasha bread Co.Inc[edit]

Appears to be a minor bakery. NSR (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy if he tones down the badvertismentisms. Otherwise, Delete. Karmafist 00:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert. Alr 01:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this ad.--FloNight 01:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising every corner shop that wants free webspace. -Splashtalk 01:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 02:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Advertisement. *drew 05:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 09:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP misused as free webspace. FMB 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN vanity advertisement. - Sensor 16:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Kurt Weber 19:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting things isn't vandalism and it is, frankly, laughable to suggest that it is. -Splashtalk 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is vandalism, policy and popular perception to the contrary notwithstanding. Kurt Weber 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comments like the above are sadly not laughable, they are wholly unnacceptable and contrary to WP. Oh and Delete Dottore So 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you object to the policy, the appropriate response is to debate whether the policy should be changed, in the appropriate venues for such a discussion (i.e. the policy talk pages). It is not to simply act as if the policy doesn't exist. For that matter, this is copied and pasted directly off the company's own website, which raises copyvio issues. Delete. Bearcat 17:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response to Kurt's comment here. Let's move on. Karmafist 17:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ridiculous. - Sensor 21:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somehow it does not seem to meet any criteria in WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 05:42, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Shasha Navazesh[edit]

Owner of Shasha bread Co.Inc, listed for deletion above. Only 236 results on Google for this person. NSR (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN. Only 64 unique Google hits. He seems like a nice guy and all, but the article has no claim to notability other than owning a bread company and founding the "Artisan Bakers Quality Alliance", which has only 59 hits, most are the same hits as above. He isn't notable enough to have outside references we can check, so unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 02:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 09:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 16:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mere fact of an individual's existence makes him notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 19:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you object to the policy, the appropriate response is to debate whether the policy should be changed, in the appropriate venues for such a discussion (i.e. the policy talk pages). It is not to simply act as if the policy doesn't exist or to deliberately disregard it for ideological reasons. The mere fact of an individual's existence does not make him notable enough for inclusion; if that were the case, I'd deserve an article about me. But, in reality, as things currently stand I quite clearly don't, given that I've never done anything in which someone who doesn't know me personally would have even the slightest interest. Delete. Bearcat 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is possibly the most ridiculous reason for keeping an article that I've ever seen. This is an encyclopedia, not a vanity site. - Sensor 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sigh... Denni☯ 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not per Kurt Weber. Punkmorten 21:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:42, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 20:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas Diocese of Chicago[edit]

Unencyclopedic tone and the text of the article does not seem to be about the title of the article. Either needs lots of work or needs to go. Gaff talk 01:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I did some work (boldface, linking, reorganization), especially on the introductory paragraph. Fg2 02:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs work but keep.Gator1 02:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable per above. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per user Fg2. Well done to him for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll retract my nom.--Gaff talk 03:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STEEM[edit]

Nonnotable, internet dictdef. Created by an anon user (contributions) that has made only a few edits and has vandalized Pure Pwnage (diff), Neo (The Matrix) (diff), and George W. Bush (diff) in the past. Karol 10:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: anon user has continued to vandalize and has been blocked. Karol 07:49, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 14:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super information database[edit]

No references given, no google hits [[26]. Unverifiable. Kappa 01:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, "still under private development" according to the article. unverifiable. Rhobite 02:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No claim to notability. Besides, its got to be either a hoax or delusion. Believe me, no artificial intelligence can come from Fortran! --A D Monroe III 02:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is woefully unverifiable from Google at least, and is probably vaporware at present since it appears not to have been released, so all the stuff it claims to do requires deployment of a crystal ball for verification. -Splashtalk 03:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. MCB 05:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MCB. --Clay Collier 06:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "The SID-I is still under private development and will be released to the public for free in the near future." makes it wholly unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. No consensus on where to merge, so I decided to put it in the article on the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (as far as I remember, the description fits). Feel free to move it elsewhere. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chocolate Room[edit]

The content is not likely to be found under this name. According to this article, it is one of the thousands of rooms in Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. That makes it not notable, even if it is the most important room. The subject of this article is best handled in Willy Wonka or existing related articles. Walter Siegmund 08:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge somewhere. Kappa 08:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to appropriate Willy Wonka-related article. Dlyons493 Talk 10:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the 2005 film starring Johnny Depp and Freddie Highmore which it appears to be about. Get rid of the versions red links. It's not useful because it doesn't detail what versions it's referring too and basically it's info to be put in articles on the film or book, not on the room. - Mgm|(talk) 12:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on precident of other fictional entities from other famous works. If it applied to just one film, a merge would be appropriate. But it applies to two movies, and a book. The article should be renamed though, to something less generic. Also, I don't understand the nominators logic. If something is the most important of thousands, that makes it *more* notable, not less. Vulcan (Star Trek) is one of many planets in Star Trek, but it's deemed more important. --rob 23:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete--FloNight 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I personally think the Great Glass Elevator is more notable than the chocolate room, because the sequel uses the Elevator profusely and even has it as the title. Regarding this room, it's one of my favorites, and so it's the one I remember, but I think another person could just as easily argue that the nut room, say, made a much bigger impression on him/her. And then where does it all end? Therefore... move and condense this information to List of rooms in Charlie's Chocolate Factory (or perhaps a better title than that, but you get the idea. The point is that a few lines on each will do. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making this point so well. Indeed, the specter of pages for tens of rooms, if not the thousand alluded to in my nomination, was one of the motivations for my nomination. I would be happy with Jacquelyn Marie's solution and it seems to be in keeping with most of the discussion so far. --Walter Siegmund 18:47, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Wikiacc (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of NANA - The Llama, The Gypsy & The Drawer[edit]

A novella on Wikicities. The page has been accessed 8 times - this nomination should at least double that figure. (Why is the access count not enabled in Wikipedia?) Non-notable novella. -- RHaworth 07:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per RHaworth. I fixed the page link. -- Kjkolb 09:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not every single story published online deserves an article. If it did, I'd be busy writing about 6 myself. - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --JJay 02:01, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Converted[edit]

AMG hasn't heard of these guys and Googling the band's name combined with the styles of music the play, the state, and their home city in various combinations didn't turn up any worthwhile hits that I could find. They've put out one EP, and appear to be strictly a local band. They're about to put out a CD, which is good for them, but they don't seem to be anywhere near meeting the guidelines set forth in WP:Music yet. -- Captain Disdain 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Converted have played in more locations than the local towns they are from, they have played and are somewhat known in Philadelphia. The reason they don't appear on Google is most likely because they haven't submitted their site to Google yet. I mean, they're a punk band that is starting out, they aren't going to be all over Google or have a .com site yet. -- Necron99

(I moved Necron99's comment to the top of the page to increase readability)

    • Necron, Wikipedia likes their articles to be verifiable. So they may have played in a lot of places, but if no reliable sources documented this, we can't prove it which is a basic requirement especially when it comes to articles on people and bands. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, just having played in a lot of places isn't enough, as the WP:Music guidelines illustrate. I can think of plenty of situations where an article about a band might be entirely appropriate even if they don't meet that criteria, but I don't think this is one of those cases. (And Necron99, you don't actually have to submit anything to Google; if it's being talked about in the net, Google's pretty good at finding it. If The Converted don't show up on Google, it's pretty much a sure thing that they aren't getting a lot of attention on the net. That alone is not the deciding factor, but it's certainly an indication that they aren't exactly turning the Maryland music scene upside down.) -- Captain Disdain 20:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 03:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A crystal ball is required to determine any notability at all here. -Splashtalk 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band. Dottore So 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, hey Cap', what's your beef? i mean you haven't attacked my band SKP's wiki, and we totally suck. i mean we don't even have any songs recorded with all of our members playing on them. The Converted is a much more verifiable band then mine. we have a song that is nine minutes of me breaking my guitar strings with a serrated knife. go ahead and google that one. if you're gonna bash on The Converted, at least do tha common courtesy of destroying all tha other Kent bands' Wikis as well. --tha 1 who Trevs 10:33, 18 October 2005 (EST)
  • Delete per 1 who Trevs. --JJay 20:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chillax alright dudes, just 'cause you haven't heard of them, dosn't mean they're not a verifiable, and awesome, band. I mean, c'mon, have you heard of everything that exists, ever? I mean, what? Just 'cause you can't find it on Godoogle means it dosn't exist? Does google hold all knowlege, ever, in history? No. There are things that exist in this crazy thing called 'Lyfe' that google has never heard of. Know why? 'Cause they just made thier leap to the interweb hoping to find a welcoming audience to increase thier fanbase on an interesting site known as 'wikipedia'. What do they find? Disbelief. Persecution. Libel, I might add. to quote the good cap'n: "they don't seem to be anywhere near meeting the guidelines set forth in WP:Music yet." Well, this is simply not true. To quote the article he was so quick to name, but obviously hasn't read, rule number 6 reads thusly: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop)..." Well, I, as a resident of Chestertown, Maryland, I would like to say for all of us that The Converted is the most prominant representative of Ska/Punk/Crust Punk/Death Metal of Chestertown, Maryland. Thus, according to the rules of Wikipedia, laid down by the most venerable whoever, The Converted's page is in fact, allowable on this site. --Converted Fan 198
  • Comment you missed out the crucial part of 6: "note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." chowells 04:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • verifiable?I dunno, I kinda figured that the three diffrent people willing to say they exist, the five refrences on thier page, and the two official websites they have would be enough verification for you people. However, if not, try going to [27]. Its the thirteenth entry down.--Converted Fan 198
  • Delete nn band chowells 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to live in Chestertown and The Converted really are what some peoples lives revolve around. Whenever there is a show announced with The Converted the kids in the town have something to look forward to in life. Being that the town is full of rich, old conservatives who dont really allow the local bands to play, being them shutting down the local venues and replacing them with offices. Another reason that one might not find info on The Converted "turning the scene upsidedown" is because the local paper probably doesnt write shit on them, probably because its run by the same rich old people. And I agree with Converted Fan 198 in that Google really doesnt know all. Google can really only cover so much. -TheRussianZombie


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

The result of the debate was delete. Wikiacc (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Enlightened Spartan[edit]

Vanity Page

  • Delete per nomination. - Lordthees 01:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising.--Alhutch 01:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad/promotion--FloNight 02:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. *drew 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, vanity, advertising, etc. CLW 10:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - better to start from scratch. --Celestianpower háblame 15:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fermata[edit]

Hopelessly garbled and POV review of some book. Better to start from scratch.

  • D Fawcett5 18:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I've read it and it's a notable book, which despite its topic, is not anti-female. Dlyons493 Talk 19:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Although there's a copyvio from the "inside flap of the Randomhouse Edition" and the article itself is a hopeless 'review', there is something to be made of an encyclopaedic inclusion of a book that may be as important as claimed. Eddie.willers 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone who knows the book can rewrite this into a decent, NPOV article, keep it. If not, delete. Saberwyn 09:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense by Thunderbrand. --GraemeL (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The First Clue[edit]

What is this? This doesn't qualify as an article, and is non-encyclopedic. Could be merged with Treasure Hunt. FireSpike 21:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Per Nomination. FireSpike 21:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It appears that someone is using WP as part of a game somewhere else, which is not what we're here for. ESkog | Talk 22:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently there never was an AfD tag on the page, but since it's now up for a speedy deletion as nonsense, that's kind of moot. I'm still pointing it out here, because User:Lady_telle already removed the speedy tag from the article once... actually, now that I look at it, she linked that in from Treasure Hunt, apparently as an example of a first clue. That leads me to think this is actually a good-faith edit, just kind of misguided. It still needs to go, though. -- ���Captain Disdain 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment unrelated to the actual AfD: FireSpike, when doing your nominations, please follow the instructions at WP:AFD -- there's a very clear set of instructions at the bottom of the page. The way you did this now resulted in there being no AfD tag on the article itself and the AfD itself being listed incorrectly on the list of nominations for today. I fixed it now, though I didn't add the AfD tag on the article itself as it is still up for a speedy deletion. Which is an ugly way of going about this, but eh. In the future, please follow those instructions; that way we'll avoid this kind of confusing stuff. Not the end of the world or anything, but, y'know. Thanks. =) -- Captain Disdain 23:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host. However, a redirect to Treasure hunt or Treasure hunting can't hurt. (Captain Disdain, hiding the first clue in a legitimate wikipedia page might just be part of the game.) --Jacquelyn Marie 01:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Interim[edit]

Reportedly a "political-action novel," the article gives a lengthy plot synopsis but no information on author or publisher. The novel is not for sale on Amazon.com, is not in the NYPL database, and Googling the names of the two principal characters (or those of other characters) gives no result. There is no reason to believe that this book has ever been published. Andrew Levine 18:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 20:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Champ[edit]

N-n File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
23:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep albums. Kappa 01:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is an article on Paul Wall. Why does this need a it's own article
  • Keep notable album Youngamerican 02:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Number 1 on US album and r&b album charts see [28]

Capitalistroadster 02:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. All keep votes, except one, are by users whose only contributions are to the article in question or its AfD. — JIP | Talk 06:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titbow[edit]

Made up game. Titbow game yields very few unique googles. -R. fiend 15:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • All games are made up. It is played all over Sydney and in Melbourne too. It's an Australian thing. Would it make a difference if i fix it up a little?--Jzeltzer 15:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Verifibility is important to wikipedia articles. If no independent verification can be given other than "I know a bunch of people who play this" then, sorry, but it is not a suitable subject for wikipedia. If it really is played all over Sydney and Melbourne, then there shouldn't be too much trouble finding some independent, verifiable references to the game. -R. fiend 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in Canberra between Sydney and Melbourne and I've never heard of it. Perhaps I lead a sheltered life or perhaps this game is not well-known or has been made up. The lack of sources currently leads me to the second conclusion. Delete. Capitalistroadster 19:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely say that I've heard of the game. I found two guys playing at a pub in Sydney and looked interesting. I went over to find out what was happening and they invited my to play - the three player version definitely exists as the article here states (though not using the 2 of diamonds as the dud). When I next spoke to my sister (who is studying in Melbourne), she said that she had also played with friends of hers. I can't explain why it does not come up on the internet, it must be something that passes by word of mouth. That said, I have definitely heard of it and do not think that it should be deleted. So Keep. W.Burroughs, 12:10, 17 October 2005

  • Delete The above comments suggest hoax. Dottore So 06:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Oh my goodness! I cant believe someone actually put up an entry for titbow! I've been playing it for several years and so can vouch for its authenticity. Please do not remove. -- Daniel Krochmalik Sydney, Australia 211.30.0.195 08:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as hoax. Xoloz 13:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys n gals, i did some googling myself... admittedly i couldn't find much on Titbow, but found quite alot on Mr. Krochmalik above. Check it out. He's like some bridge champion. That's gotta count for something right?--Jzeltzer 22:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To correct Jzeltzer, I am a semi-professional bridge player who is very familiar with card games. I recently competed in the 10th World Junior Bridge Championships held in Sydney. On the sidelines of this very important tournament, titbow was played as a social game to release the tension from the day's bridge. It is well known within bridge playing circles and amongst people who are experienced card players. This is no hoax. Daniel Krochmalik 211.30.0.195 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey i live in Sydney. I know alot of card games but have never heard of it. Dont really see the problem though. The game has clearly been played (by virtue of the rules themselves), it makes sense, and i cant really think of one like it. I think I'll even give it a go - looks classic. It is truly remarkable how many games can be played with a standard deck of 52 cards. It would be great if wikipedia could be a testament to this remarkability. Viva Titbow. Keep it. --Jonathan pang 11:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I played a drinking version of the game in Syd. Added it on for ya dudes. --Balint Seeber 11:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am not sure why this is being considered a hoax - it would seem like a lot of effort has been made just to make a false addition to the Wikipedia. If there are clear rules, and people admitting to playing, then surely the game exists and should be included. Or am I missing the point? If so, could the detractors please explain why it should not be included, rather than just calling it a hoax. For the record, I have played Titbow with Uni friends in Sydney and it is an awesome game. Keep --Yun thai wang 11:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I'm over at the uni of wollongong. We played it on 1st year camp, not familiar with the drinking version (though many drinks were involved..). anyway, its not a particularly good game but it exists nonetheless. good to see some aussie youth culture making its way into wiki. Keep -- Lance Draper, Gong
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 20:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turbi Village Massacre[edit]

delete Unverified nn event, stub. Just see for yourself! It's... Thelb4! 09:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Requested on the Countering systemic bias template and I have no idea how it's "unverified" considering it was mentioned in every newspaper I was reading at the time. I've expanded the article and added external links. (Yes, I do see the grim humor in requests by CSB being immediately put up for deletion.) - BanyanTree 15:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I "saw for myself" on google, and it appears to be a verified, notable event. Bwithh 15:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 17:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is what CSB has to battle against: people who think something in Kenya is not worth an article, while there are tonnes of articles about boring towns in USA. --Gareth Hughes 19:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Kappa 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --nixie 00:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Denni☯ 22:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Gryffindor 13:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical christology[edit]

I don't think this is a widespread term; in any case, the concept itself doesn't seem to differ in any particularly significant way from other interpretations of Christianity. Google gets a single hit for "Vertical christology", and that's just random garbage on a page titled "pussy porn milfseeker - POSTERIOR". -- Captain Disdain 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . Gotta love that google hit, though. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neo-logism and/or original research. --Clay Collier 08:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 03:14, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virago[edit]

Dictionary definition. Willmcw 17:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem: the guy who keeps adding that racist nonsense will probably just recreate it. --Brazzy 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd be grounds for a speedy delete. -Willmcw 19:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the writer of the second part of the article. I suggest a compromise.Let us write a good article together in which all opinions are represented. You can add your ideas and I can mine. As I wrote to Brazzy, general deletion is not a typical way for scientific dispute. Other articles in the wikipedia show that a more conservative biological view and a more progressive sociological view can coexist in harmony (e.g.,wikipedia "race". Please take note of the fact that I got discontended when Brazzy deleted lengthy parts of the article without a serious discussion just as he cancelled Dr. Christoph Neumann's contribution concerning the sexuality of the Nadeshiko Yamato.But sexuality is an important aspect of the Japanese conservative female archetype. It is very easy to label someone a racist who strongly claims that he is none, e.g. all my statements about Blacks and Asians are positive ones: the high efficiency of Asian societies; the freedom of Chinese anthropology where b o t h the Boasian and the conservative view can be discussed; the "womanly" looks of Indonesians and Filipinas on average concerning anthropometrical measures no-one can seriously deny. My part of the article is descriptive and I never suggested any actions against any group of people I mentioned. I respect all the groups and authorities in the article.I never evaluated them ("good","bad" etc.) That some people consider some statements as not flattering does not mean that I did not like or respect any of the mentioned groups or authorities.I am a professor of anthropology and I my contribution to other anthropological articles in the English wikipedia were explicitly welcomed by others (e.g.concerning the direct involvement of the AAA in secret service activities). So let us together build a new article.
      • If you're a professor of anthropology, you should be easily able to provide us with some good verifiable references for the views you advocate... right? Haeleth 14:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef (short version) or original research (long version). Haeleth 14:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Haeleth, I will provide you with good references of course:

1.)Knußmann,Rainer, Handbuch der vergleichenden Anthropologie und Humangenetik,1996, 2.ed.; there are more male and more female-paedomorphous races; higher aggressiveness of bigger, heavier women;virago recent beauty ideal; viragines seek female men as mates 2.) Baker,John Randal, Race, Oxford University Press,1974;there are significant racial intelligence differences;some races are more female-paedomorphous than others; there is no orthogenesis towards civilization,phylogenesis is not identical with ontogenesis, only 4 Europid societies reached independently the stage of civilization, the Sinic is uncertain, the Mayas and Incas had a significantly lower culture not being civilizations 3.)Lynn,Richard,IQ and the wealth of nations,2002;African Blacks have an IQ of about 70 4.) MacDonald,Kevin B., A people that shall dwell alone, Separation and its discontents,The Culture of Critique, the hidden Jewish agenda behind Boasian anthropology and multiculturalism 5.) Langdon,Kevin passim for big differences of male and female IQ 6.)Bem;Sandra, inluential theory of androgynity (or better viraginity)promoting the interests of the viragines in the name of minimizing violence in society;doubtful because viragines are more aggressive than normal women 7.)Johnston, Caryl, American sociologist, making allegations of a primarily Jewish background of modern feminism on her website 8.) Lieberman et. al. studying the attitudes towards race and conservative biological explanations throughout the world. Please study these works and the website carefully as a basis for a serious discussion. An overwhelming amount of information is given supporting my view.

  • Comment It's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is plenty of room for a good article on this sociosexual phenomenon, and I believe that the pre-truncated article was a good start. Clearly we are dealing with some racist overtones here - any mention of a "hidden Jewish agenda" rightfully deserves to be greeted with hoots of disdainful laughter, and is not appropriate in the context of this discussion even if it were legitimate. However, this is a legitimate topic and deserving of more than just a dicdef. I'm really choking over those "references" though - I can't believe that some of them represent anything like mainstream thought. Denni☯ 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let us take Boasianism.Boas invented Boasianism nearly alone, he had a strong Jewish identification, nearly all of his mainly Jewish students became deans and influential anthropologists at American universities, Boasianism first controlled the USA making mass immigration possible, after 1945 it controlled the world except China (s.Lieberman,Littlefield, Reynolds). There were no other important factors that facilitated mass immigration to the US. Boas and his students were the key factor with a 90% responsibility if someone would like to have a number. "Disdainfulful laughter" about the truth is I think inappropriate.If you can show that the above statements are wrong, then you might laugh. Have you examined all books in my bibliography carefully? I don't think so, so please do this first.You write that you are a "disciplined deletionist", maybe you become a "serious reader and scientist",too.E.g. John Randal Baker is dealt with in the wikipedia article "race", too,as an important contribution to anthropology, Littlefield, Lieberman and Reynold wrote primarily a documentation.

  • Keep and clean-up. Topic is broader than a dicdef, but needs a more WP:NPOV treatment. Dystopos 02:47, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual80s[edit]

Non notable website.

I really don't see how that is so, have you been to the site and seen it? Chocolatier

  • hey* how do you do those date/name stamps? chocolatier
  • Could someone tell me why you think this page should be deleted, rather than say, moved, to somewhere else? I'm pretty new at this game, help me out!! - Chocolatier, Article Creator
    • It's non-notable (see Wikipedia:Websites). And where would you suggest it be moved to? There's no good place to move the article (which in a Wikipedian context usually means to re-name it), as Virtual80s would be the best title for the article if the subject merited one. If you like Virtual80s a lot, or if you manage it, you can include a link to it on your user space saying so. Andrew Levine 05:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (Oh, and to sign your name with the timestamp, type ~~~~ (four tildes).[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 06:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Looks strangely like someone's blog. --JJay 16:53, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (deleted by Zzyzx11). -Greg Asche (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wafflezman[edit]

Nonsense. -202.156.6.62 00:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This junk should be a speedy delete and a very easy one instead placed the tag --JAranda | watz sup 01:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the problem is that the author keeps removing tags. The tag you placed was also removed immediately. -202.156.6.59 01:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I reverted the tags and reported the vandalism --Cloveious 01:31, 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 --Celestianpower hablamé 14:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webpirate[edit]

non-notable forum. Not much on Google, forum is registration only, article is obvious advertisement right now. No real claims to why this is a notable forum anyway. Site has an Alexa rank around 30,000 but it hosts many forums (apparently it lets anyone create a forum). W.marsh 21:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anon (User:69.92.218.92) added this comment into the middle of my deletion explanation: "*notable forum because it has many discussions on politics, music, relationships and the likes*". --W.marsh 21:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nomination. An advert. Not even a candidate for a stub! Mark Swanborough 21:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... I go on that forum and even I think it has no place being on Wikipedia. Delete. "This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc." Falls pretty clearly into that. --GinAndTonic 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. The quicker, the better. Shauri 13:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 - this is a cut and paste from [29]. HappyCamper 02:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who discovered zero[edit]

  • Doesn't Fit Into any WP:CSD A or G criteria.
  • Personal Essay sounding
  • Awkward sounding title which can be construed as a POV lead on.
  • Everything within it already covered more throughly and accurately in 0 (number)

A clear sounding Delete to me. Karmafist 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Suspiciously like OR, and not particularly encyclopaedic. Anything useful (if anything) could be merged with 0 (number), or whatever the page is called. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our 0 article already has a thorough coverage of this issue and I doubt many users would type this in looking for info about 0. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was just looking at Who's user page, and nowhere on there does he claim to have discovered zero.  BD2412 talk 01:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but the page was made by an anon. -Splashtalk 01:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Who Delete. This is plainly an essay, right down to the attribution at the bottom, and has no sources whatsoever, making it a mix of original research and outright speculation. -Splashtalk 01:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article 0 (number) already has a section called "First use of the number" that is better-written than this essay. --216.232.210.161 02:03, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Xavier. If you want to make Xavierite a disambiguation page, please discuss it at Talk:Xavierite and do so if consensus is formed. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xavierite[edit]

non-notable. should go to wiktionary, although multiple definitions of Xavierite would be equally as valid. Gaff talk 05:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use as Redirect to Jesuit --MacRusgail 20:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't redirect to Jesuit. Too broad. Maybe redirect to St. Xavier's College, Bombay. But that is rather narrow. Really, this is a word -Xavierite- meaning one from Xavier. There are many, many places called Xavier. In the sense that it is used, it does not neccessarily mean person from Xavier, but could mean follower of Francis Xavier. Of note, there are currently 9 entries on the disambig page for Xavier. St. Xavier's College, Bombay is not even listed there yet. Okay I just listed it. What if we redirect Xavierite to Xavier and leave it at that?--Gaff talk 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xavier per wisdom of Gaff.  BD2412 talk 03:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we edit this article and state the different usages of the term and provide links to different articles, including St. Xavier's College, Bombay, Xavier, etc.. I think this is the only logical and fair way to solve this issue.  Rahul_meg talk 14:20, 18 October 2005 (IST)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Physchim62 21:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yumemi Kobo[edit]

This article seems to have been speedy deleted, and then undeleted per WP:VfU. IMO it is not a speedy candidate. Per the usual procedure in such cases it is beign listed here. DES (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction. The article was recreated by the anon author, not undeleted. The VfU discussion has not yet concluded. Rossami (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful article and should have never been deleted. 64.200.124.189 19:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a verifiable source that does not appear to be the press release of the creator of this product is cited in the article. DES (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, verifiable. Kappa 09:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: correct title seems to be "yumemi kobo". Kappa 09:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The product certainly appears to exist (see the company's website from the link), and that's what merits the article; the product's claims don't have to be valid or verifiable for the article to exist. As Kappa said, the article should be renamed. In a Google search, I jumped forward to page 30 and the hits were still relevant to this product. Fg2 10:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Appears to be vapourware - the few refs there are are from early 2004. Did it ever make it beyond being a dream of a potential manufacturer? Apparently it did! Dlyons493 Talk 10:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Takara is a big cheese in the world of Japanese toys, for example they sell the popular "Licca" doll. The Japanese page gives a list of shops where it is on sale[30]. Unfortunately nowhere near me, so I can't check directly, but it appears to be a badly written article about a real product, hence Keep. Tomorrow is my son's birthday, so I'm going to a local toy shop. I'll see if they stock the product, since that page is out of date. --DannyWilde 11:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, the product is on sale at Amazon Japan. --DannyWilde 11:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real product and notable based on Danny's evidence. Not a speedy by a long shot. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have just performed a page move to Yumemi kobo. encephalon 14:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should have updated you folks earlier. I rewrote the page. I think the best outcome really would be an eventual merge in Takara Toys, which at the moment is a poor article. But keeping Yumemi as is for now wouldn't be a bad thing. encephalon 16:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or merge. The current rewrite is quite satisfying. --Jacquelyn Marie 00:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this sounds interesting. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 19:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. mikka (t) 19:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly verifiable, but article at present is very close to an advertisment. Alphax τεχ 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep although a definite product, it verges on advertisement --Reflex Reaction 13:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a verifiable product and a decent quality article. Editing is the cure for articles that read too much like advertising, not deletion. Unfocused 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. It's more real than the Bajoran wormhole and is probably of more universal usefulness than D2jsp. Pedant 20:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons stated above. Science3456 23:11, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_16&oldid=1081093376"