Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

Purge server cache

October 31[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Thryduulf 18:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

" A Coathanger Abortion"[edit]

Delete Not sure if this is a candidate for speedy deletion? Could be a redirect to Abortion? Shawn 09:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A 5 minutes explanation of Relativity[edit]

Delete This article was added by an anon with IP address 212.21.138.161 which is registered in Bulgaria, and cites a cranky web page in Bulgaria. The article evidently concerns the authors cranky personal views; certainly there is no "time relativity" known in physics. Hence this article violates the verifiability and NOR rules, at the very least. CH (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article classifies itself as New Insight in Physics. Delete per WP:NOR. --Pjacobi 16:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See also http://www.pirelliaward.com/einstein.html and http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/. Thanks/wangi 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure I understand--- are you saying that you guess that Marinchev is hoping to win the Pirelli award with this article? Not bloody likely, I should think. ---CH (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's exactly it, and why I didn't vote - I do not fully understand the topic; however a quick search for "5 minutes explanation of Relativity" does bring up stuff that, to the untrained eye, certainly does look connected. I guess I was just say it's not 100% original research... wangi 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "new insight", uses talk pages as a reference, and anything worthwhile could be on another page anyway. JPD (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kgf0 16:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: If an article similar to this (and better written) belongs anywhere, it's simple:Relativity which sorely needs work anyway. --Kgf0 23:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It makes the baby Einstein cry. Shimgray | talk | 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As an aside: the essay does not even deliver what it promises. It concludes by saying "Is a 5 minutes explanation of Relativity possible? Yes, it is, if we use the time relativity." But "the time relativity" is never defined or explained. As nearly as I can tell, this is an introduction to a 5-minute explanation that is never actually delivered. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was just gonna replace this with a redirect, but this works too. -- SCZenz 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I applaud the effort at an easy to understand introduction to relativity. This might qualify as a "trampoline" article, designed to introduce novices to advanced concepts, similar to Special relativity for beginners. See Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience. As such, any flaws should be fixed and the article improved upon, rather than deleted. As for the time relativity line at the end, I believe that was meant as a joke. It can certainly be taken out. As for whether it was written by an anonymous I/P from Sophia, Bulgaria, I don't see how that disqualifies a contribution. As far as I know, Wikipedia has no policy excluding contibutions from certain locations or from anonymous contributors. If they are referencing themself, those refs should be taken out. In short, we may just be dealing with a newbie who doesn't know the rules, so let's show a little patience, please. StuRat 22:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, please keep your shirt on. The location information was simply to support my presumption that the anonymous edits were made by Marinchev. That is relevant because I was invoking WP:NOR in nominating the article for deletion. I am about to add another comment further down which I hope you will take to heart.---CH (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we assume that the last line is a joke, I still have to say I don't see the article as useful. It similar to stating Euclid's axioms and calling it a "5 minute explanation of geometry." Unless you happen to be a Euclid—or an Einstein—it doesn't really "explain" anything. So, yes, I applaud the effort, but I reject the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the issue, there's not much here we can use. So we have an article idea that might be fine, with content that has to be wholly rewritten and a title that has to be changed. Why not just delete it and let someone write a new one at the right place if someone wants to? -- SCZenz 23:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it all depends on if we have someone willing to give the article the TLC it needs to get it up to specs. StuRat 00:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, about Wikipedia:WikiProject General Audience, I am certainly one of those who has been raising the technical bar with my own contributions to the Wikipedia, but I don't disagree with the goals of that project unless your goals statment means "every article in Wikipedia should remain accessible in its entirety to a general audience". Actually, even then I might not disagree, since I am beginning to think that there may be case for Wikimedia forking the Wikipedia into a populist general audience encyclopedia which anyone can edit, as in the current Wikipedia model, and a controlled content scholarly/scientific encyclopedia which is much less up-to-the-minute but much more reliable, as in the Britannica model. However, in the short term, statistics seem to show that many of the most active and knowledgeable editors of the Wikipedia are involved in creating articles on highly technical topics, including physics topics, and in such articles, I advocate (following accepted encyclopedic practice) that the articles should begin with a nontechnical summary accessible to a general audience, and subsequently introduce technical material as needed, if possible with monotonically increasingly technical demands, after the Baez model of exposition.
In any case, while it might be beneficial to discuss such policy issues elsewhere (maybe on my talk page?), in the case at hand, the key point about why this particular article has been nominated for deletion was succinctly expressed by SCZenz: there's not much here we can use. Don't forget one of Einstein's own favorite sayings: a (theory, explanation) should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. What we have in this article is something so simplified it doesn't even make sense, not just to a physicist but even to a general audience member. Bearing this in mind, I hope you will reread the article and change your vote.---CH (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject General Audience page would be the proper place for such a discussion, but since I'm not sure you're watchiing it, I will respond here. I would characterize the goal of the project as "every article in Wikipedia should be accessible in its entirety to a general audience, inasmuch as it is possible to do so without deleteing technical content. Introductions to articles which the general audience is likely to encounter should be accessible to a general audience, even if movement of technical content from the intro to the body is required." StuRat 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be changing my vote, as I believe such an article is needed, although admitedly with a major rewrite. My vote for deletion is not required, however, as I bow to the will of the majority. In other words, if the article is deleted, I won't revert it, not because I agree with the action, but because I respect the consensus. StuRat 17:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It goes without saying that we all respect consensus, and I think more generally-accesible introductions are good. (Even my physics writing is designed to be generally readable.) I'm personally just confused about why this article should be kept; as I said above, nothing about it is salvagable. -- SCZenz 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is salvagable. That is, there should be an introductory article on relativity. The Special relativity for beginners article is decent, but lacks some of the historical references, such as to Newton and Galileo, which have been added to the new article. I would support a merge with Special relativity for beginners, but that's quite different. StuRat 21:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why that information cannot simply be added to Theory of relativity, which is linked to from the Relativity dab page, and which in turn links to Special Relativity and General Relativity? I.e., put the general concept and historical information that covers the topic as a whole at "Theory of," and start getting down and dirty in the more specific articles (while, naturally, still providing the General Audiences versions in the introductions). I continue to maintain that any article as grotesquely simplified as this article wants to be (and isn't) belongs at simple:Relativity, as noted in the edit to my delete vote above. --Kgf0 22:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think simple is the right place for this stuff, because it's a site for simple language, not necessarily simple ideas. (Actually it's pretty difficult to figure out what it's for, but I've already voted with my feet by not writing there.) However, I still don't understand your stance, StuRat; nobody's attacking the concept of a simple introduction, nobody's voting against the concept of a simple introduction, and deleting this article isn't getting rid of the concept of a simple introduction. Hell, I might work on a simple introduction to GR myself, if you like. -- SCZenz 02:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not just advocating a general audience intro, but an entire general audience article, in cases like this with a seemingly complex topic which has a name recognizable by the general public. With that said, I think some of the content, like the Galileo and Newton references, should be merged into Special relativity for beginners. Then this article can be deleted. StuRat 03:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more or less as per nom. I see nothing redeeming in this page. It is effectively a first draft on a subject which has several relevant and well-developed pages already (i.e.: special relativity, special relativity for beginners, and general relativity). It makes little sense to start over again, especially given how primitive and difficult to comprehend this article is. --EMS | Talk 02:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless given existing pages, and original research as well Salsb 12:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cathar[edit]

Vanity and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC Budgiekiller 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against Empire[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Suggests (in an advertising way!) to go to a MySpace page to listen to their tracks. Claim to have two records, both available at a website I have never heard of. Otherwise, nn bandcruft. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Suffering[edit]

Band does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC: only released a demo album. Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy NN, vanity. PJM 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bandity. Bands, however, are not speediable, alas. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a tough time with that one, I guess. I really believe if something is clearly NN, and / or vanity, it should meet CSD. PJM 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Guinan[edit]

Indistinguishable from his brother, Tomas Guinan, whose article we just deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Thryduulf 18:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Escobar[edit]

Information looks fake; only 10 Google hits. --Ixfd64 08:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE maybe even a SPEEDY And DELETE the picture of Anais wearing her Anias shirt as well. Stu 14:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Looks like a pisstake page Pilatus 14:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Hackzelius[edit]

This unreferenced article is very close to being a hoax. There really was a 17th century Anders Hackzelius who was a parish vicar in the Katarina parish in Stockholm, and later in Holm parish in Uppland, and who can be found in a couple of genealogy pages on the web (e.g. here).

The article, however, attempts to give the impression that this Anders Hackzelius was somebody more important: "Anders Hackzelius was a priest, a Church master and the Curator of Sweden-Finland during the most influential time of the superpower period of the Swedish Empire in the late 1600's." I don't know what Swedish title "Curator of Sweden-Finland" is meant to translate, but the fact is that Hackzelius can not be found in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (the Swedish Dictionary of Biography), Nordisk familjebok or Nationalencyklopedin. A person of some significance would have been found in one of these reference works.

It also claims that "[t]he Hackzelius family was an influential family of political and spiritual leaders as well as warriors and cavalry men.". Well, no other members of the Hackzelius family can be found in any of these standard Swedish reference works either - how influential could they possibly be? (Finnish prime minister Antti Hackzell may well be a descendant, but he lived centuries later.)

The article continues: "The name Hackzelius refers to the brave and fiercely fighting Finnish Hakkapeliitta cavalry men, knights [...]" 17th century cavalrymen were not knights, but that may be excused as just a bad translation. The statement on the name is unsourced, as everything else, but anyone with some knowledge of how Swedish family names were created in that period will find it much more likely that the name is derived from Hackzelius's birthplace: Hacksta.

The short article also throws in an implicit reference to a long-debunked genealogical myth about a never-existing ancestor of President of the Continental Congress John Hanson, see comment by Viper Daimao at Talk:Hakkapeliitta. This doesn't strengthen the credibility of the article.

I can only insist on deletion of this article. Uppland 22:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find the argument for deletion confusing. Uppland, if the article contains unverified material, or overstates some claims, is there any reason to not simply edit the article? Jkelly
  • Delete -- Jkelly, because it's a hoax, and at best the article would get edited down to "Anders Hackzelius was a vicar in 17th-century Finland", which is up there with listing every other citizen of 17th-century Finland and the rest of the world. I can't verify Uppland's references myself but it's his area of expertise. (A bit strongly argued, but that's the best-supported deletion argument I've seen in some time.) — mendel ☎ 01:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. Well, in that case, delete. Jkelly 03:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for being confusing. I couldn't think of any way to explain more briefly or simply what is wrong with this article, but Mendel summarizes it well, except for the Finland part. (As far as I can see, the real Hackzelius was born in Uppland in Sweden and worked there and in Stockholm. It is possible that he served with the Finnish hakkapeliitta, but it is in any case not very significant. There were thousands of clergymen following the Swedish(-Finnish) troops during the 17th century.) The article not only lacks references, but the general character of the article makes it impossible to put any trust in any parts of it. Uppland 07:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good research, Uppland. We need to get rid of hoaxes like this one. Sam Vimes 09:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antediluvian Brotherhood[edit]

no citation Tom Harrison (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Tom Harrison (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes, but don't merge -- Francs2000 19:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't sound like the same thing. I don't think a redirect is appropriate. - Dalbury 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ordinary members of the RAOB are known as Brothers; when I first saw the article that's what I thought it was referring to. -- Francs2000 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's so secret that there is nothing at all on it on Google. - Dalbury 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Redirect. per nom -Andrew 21:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Austere[edit]

An anonymous band. Dlyons493 Talk 23:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous band is not invalid - distributed by well-known indie label Hypnos:

http://www.hypnos.com http://www.hypnos.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=HOS&Product_Code=austere02&Category_Code=austere

They are a favourite band and deserve an entry.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 to refer it to WP:TFD. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australia Primetime Sunday[edit]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide. also, this is unmaintainable. Bwithh 07:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't this be on Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion? Thelb4 08:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agh. Yes. It should. And it definitely shouldn't have the {{afd}} template on there, since that dumped every article the template was on into Category:Pages for deletion and confused the living daylights out of my bot. :)

      Bwithh: See WP:TFD like Thelb4 says; templates need extra care when being nominated, and there are instructions there. I'm going to move this nomination there. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian monarchist alliance[edit]

after removing copyvio material nothing notable remains that is not PoV FRS 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, per nom --FRS 00:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a political party-- fix it would also be my vote --eleuthero 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is a collection of monarchists in Australia. Whether it is a notable group is another matter. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy is a notable group of Australian monarchists. I am yet to be convinced whether this group of monarchists with a Yahoo Group is. They are certainly not prominent in Australian politics. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Capitalistroadster on this one. I'm Australian, and I've never heard of them. Just because they're real doesn't mean they're notable worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 01:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; POV. ERcheck 02:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No results in Australian and New Zealand media check. Small group with geocities page and Yahoo Group with 24 posts over the past week. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A small group without much activity, let alone publicity. JPD (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly written article which appears to be non-notable. The author (anon IP) needs to add quite a bit more detail and refs to justify keeping. He's written one other article (Dean Kalimniou) -- Ian ≡ talk 13:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV isn't a reason to delete, but non-notable is. Tedernst 18:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. If it is a badly-written article, and no-one cares enough to edit it, then get rid of it as not being worthy as an encyclopedia article. But until "non-notability" has been accepted by the community as a valid reason for deletion, it isn't one. Ground Zero | t 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GuardDog 01:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Holderca1 04:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Li Xi[edit]

Non notable (>45 hits on Google and those seem mostly for current holders of that name) plus perhaps original research. It seems like this article has already been deleted twice... Ifnord 04:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, how can you apply the google test to historical figures of non-English speaking countries? Kappa 04:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a search by the chinese name gives near 24000 hits, although I have no idea if they refer to the article meaning.
  • Comment Article author should provide references. Bwithh 05:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a bit of context to the lead sentence. --Vsion 07:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now only 10,100 hits on Google. He's a pretty good Politician AFAIK, and invented some Chinese Sayings. antilived T | C 08:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Bai Lixi--Confuzion 09:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verified and notable at this point, this one has potential. Jacqui ★ 15:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, notability has been firmly established. Hall Monitor 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I can't imagine why this has been marked for deletion. Notability is clear. - Sensor 02:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, as notable. Carioca 20:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett the Master[edit]

no reference found, probable nonsense Melaen 15:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing on google for "barrett janchevski", and nothing in the polish wikipedia, neither for "barrett" nor for "janchevski". Probably a sort of hoax. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear patrol[edit]

An informal name for a work-study job at a single American university. Not encyclopedic. Joyous (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page bears deleting. I know, I know, that was awful. BD2412 T 02:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I know it wouldn't get appaws. BD2412 T 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, per nomination. ERcheck 02:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Actually, this page BEARS to be speedily deleted.Vulturell 05:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dalbury 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  Ian13  17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (attack page) - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Flame[edit]

The page was created by a vandal who claimed self-creation in the edit summary, and therefore is vanity as well. The band appears to be non-notable; no claim of actual commerical recording. Also contains an attack on an ex-bandmember.

Additional comment by me (who nominated this): It's also poorly written. I think it should be speedy deleted, but added AfD just to be on the safe side. --Nlu 14:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maas (college)[edit]

  • keep, " Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States"-he has never played professionally and not even at the highest level of collegiate athleticsXpendersx 18:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, Bill Maas (college)-vanity-a google search of Bill Maas+Washington University brings back only 34 hits, most of which are just the wikipedia entry.Xpendersx 13:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's the retired NFL player / sportscaster Bill Maas who seems more notable than this kid (his son?). Maybe one day but not now. PJM 13:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bill Maas has his own article and someone keeps adding this information about Bill Maas (college) onto the page.Xpendersx 13:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if this were a case of two different people, it would be under the wrong title (ex. College). Stu 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 -Greg Asche (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bird-people[edit]

Made up term, and there's no such "race". Delete. CLW 09:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nominated this article for deletion, it has been cleaned and expanded to give a useful article which no longer runs along the lines of "Bird people are a race of people such as Woody Woodpecker". Hence, change vote to Move to Bird people (and remove the re-direct which is currently there). CLW 13:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is definitely no notable race of this kind. But if the article is expanded into "Bird-like characters" perhaps then it may be ketp. Else delete Prashanthns 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and BTW, they forgot to name "Witchy-Poo" from HR Puffenstuff) Stu 14:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to List of bird-like characters or something similar. I don't see anything wrong with the content. — brighterorange (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • agree here, content is fine, just strangely titled, appropriate for MOTU perhaps Essexmutant 15:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same here, move. Thanks/wangi 16:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, move. - Dalbury 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A big KEEP. The bird-people (or birdmen) are part of many cultures religions and rites and thus encyclopedia-worthy. Maybe the other stuff can be moved elseewhere. - Alureiter 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Why do you hate birds? --AStanhope 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because they crap on my car. --DavidConrad 06:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or move to a more suitable name --Alynna 20:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move - List of Bird-humanoid figures perhaps? --JohnDBuell | Talk 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly common trope in fantasy and science fiction. The article right now reads like a list, but I disagree with moving it to "List of bird people" or whatever. —BrianSmithson 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - although this article should speak of the mysterious "bird people" found on Easter Island carvings too. --MacRusgail 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as per earlier suggestions, but keep the content. --Kiand 22:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Alureiter. Carioca 21:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 02:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitoogle[edit]

This seems to be a page on a non-notable search engine (along with page Yotoshi, which seems like a vanity page or even a link to a commercial service which does not really provide any encyclopedic value. Move to delete Master Of Ninja 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Nonnotable.mikka (t) 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom -Andrew 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bittorrent Search Engine[edit]

This seems to be a page on a non-notable search engine (along with page Bitoogle and Yotoshi), which seems like a vanity page or even a link to a commercial service which does not really provide any encyclopedic value. Move to delete Master Of Ninja 19:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List_of_BitTorrent_clients and/or Keep as it seems almost every semi-notable BT Client has a wiki.
  • delete. nonnotable.mikka (t) 20:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and no merge unless these articles gain more noteriety. -Andrew 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is about a relevant new Internet technology.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blarghasm[edit]

Delete neologism, near-nonsense. --Trovatore 03:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a perfectly fine word :o you are just to old to comprehend Trovatore! (preceding unsigned comment by 66.82.9.4 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2005)
  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 05:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just delete. -- Captain Disdain 08:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, this is sad that people would be wandering this place deleting words that might be nonsense. By the way, have you guys ever though about deleting fo-shizzle? or any other slang wordage? When the Oxford English Dictionary has those kinds of words in it, then why fight this one too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.233.193 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 15:48:35 UTC
    • Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of slang or otherwise. It is an encyclopaedia. If you wish to work on a dictionary, Wiktionary is over there. Note that, just like the OED, Wiktionary attempts to be a dictionary of language as it actually exists and has attestation criteria that must be satisfied before accepting something as a word. If you wish to work on a project with no such criteria, and wish to just invent new words and new meanings of your own, then UrbanDictionary is the place. Uncle G 16:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dalbury 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tedernst 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 21:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 01:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Failing that delete as unverifiable and unencyclopedic. The Land 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Beecher[edit]

Vanity page created by the user described in the page, and attempt to advertise and spam a link Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 22:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I provide free services to many community groups who lack funding. Mohegan Sun in wikpedia is a vanity page for a casino. They do nothing for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.74.53 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 00:22:06

Could you please point to the Wikipedia policy that has anything to do with what you just said? This is about notability and self-promotion, not about whether you are doing anything out of the goodness of your heart or not. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 00:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing salvageable in article for an encyclopedia. Jkelly 01:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising, nn. -- DS1953 talk 04:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: advertising, spam, vanity. MCB 22:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being a good person does not make you encyclopedic--Rogerd 05:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertisement. Mr. Beecher has also vandalized Mohegan and Mohegan Sun twice each. | Keithlaw 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 02:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lacy Campos[edit]

Delete Non-notable person, never held elective office or high-profile party official, vanity article EdwinHJ | Talk 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep notability not quite clear but... I`m in doubt so I vote to keep --Isolani 17:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Close, but not quite encyclopedic. --CastAStone 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person lacks notability. Being the former chair of a small organization and the "editor" of his own defunct online newsletter is really a stretch. -- MicahMN | μ 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... almost speediable, but not quite. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Molyneux[edit]

advertisement for nn musician. --Isolani 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buis, Turkey Cash, Reputation Power, BUIS Reputation and O-Board[edit]

Note: If you are here as a result of the thread entitled Wikipedia Article on BUIS (Needs input) on the BUIS forum itself please ensure you have read and fully understand the deletion policy before leaving a comment. Also please note that pointing out that your comment is your first edit, or that you are a new user, is common practice in deletion discussions and is not intended to be a personal attack on you as a person.

A forum. With pretend money. Is it really notable? Francs2000 00:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally non-notable. The page also has sections which are probably hoax or nonsense. Bwithh 00:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Devotchka 02:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. ERcheck 02:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you the site is real and not a hoax. (preceding unsigned comment by 68.117.38.99 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2005)
  • Plus you guys are real jerks. :mad: (preceding unsigned comment by 68.117.38.99 (talk · contribs) 04:28, 31 October 2005)
    • Don't take it personally. In general, Wikipedia articles for individual web forums tend to get deleted unless there is something particularly notable about them, no matter how real they are. Also, you should sign your comments on deletion discussions and other talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end of them; you might want to register, too, so you'll have a proper username instead of just your IP address. --Aquillion 05:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This page ties into the overall workings of BUIS and is meant as an explanation of several features of the message board. Absinthejanus 06:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need for BUIS to use Winkipedia as personal webspace, it has its own url. The purpose of Winkipedia is to chronicle notable goings-on on the internet. A message board with a 4 year history is fairly notable. As too are the people who use it. Absinthejanus 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above user name Absinthejanus (Contributions) was created only yesterday and has contributed only to the articles that are the subject of this AFD discussion and to this discussion. ♠DanMS 06:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should that have any bearing on this discussion? Is this not the place to argue the validity of the page in question? Absinthejanus 07:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The wikipedia entries for reputation/etc, may not be notable - however the site itself (BUIS) has an extensive history and a loyal userbase spanning 4 years. It has been one of the last remaining significant communities of Smashing Pumpkins fans. It certainly is a notable site on the internet. Lonelytowers 08:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment is user's only contribution to Wikipedia so far. -- Francs2000 10:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BUIS is well known on other Smashing Pumpkins related sites. Although other sites churn out many new users and lose many too. Because of this, it is commonly referred to, but without a URL or other helpful information. This is where Wikipdia comes in, helping us give a small rundown and extensive history of the site for those with questions or comments. MyBigToe
    • User's only contributions to Wikipedia so far include edits to the articles in question and this vote. -- Francs2000 10:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to reach WP:WEB criteria. Alf melmac 11:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is a quote from Alexa.com "Traffic Rank for buis2.net: 1,750,334" while the minimum for consideration on wikipedia is only 10,000. Absinthejanus 12:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've got it the wrong way round. Lower alexa ranks are better, thus WP:WEB requires 10,000 or lower. For example Wikipedia's rank is 41 [2]. That makes this site's rank far below the requirement. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn forumcruft. the wub "?!" 12:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another related page added at O-Board. I strongly recommend to Absinthejanus that you stop creating or editing pages relating to "BUIS" while this discussion is current. Further creation or editing of these pages in question could be seen to be malicious. -LichYoshi 13:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I thought the point of this was to make the best case possible for the page by building and editing to make it notable. Since that is one of the requirements for the site to be added. If being an active member is malicious then i'm not sure how this site is supposed to work. Absinthejanus 14:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, Wikipedia reports on sites because they are already notable—web sites don't become notable just because someone has created one or more articles about them on Wikipedia. If you can demonstrate the notability of BUIS and its related topics by expanding or clarifying the existing articles, that would be worthwhile. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. 84.81.42.123 15:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - This was me. For some reason I had lost my login. Dalbury 16:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. If for some reason the main article is kept, the others should be merged in with it. Tedernst 18:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - Master Of Ninja 19:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; nn forumcruft. MCB 22:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it strikes me as a bit problematic to keep amending the nomination by adding related articles. I do understand the reason, but what if someone got sneaky and stuck in an unrelated article he just didn't like? --Trovatore 17:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, delete Buis and any new articles without substantial non-BUIS content. --Trovatore 17:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I agree with Trovatore (and have made the point myself in other proposed deletions) that adding articles to a nomination after several editors have voted is not good form. The person adding the pages may see them as all the same for the purposes of deletion but another editor may not. -- DS1953 talk 02:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathar (band)[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and seems entirely non-notable Budgiekiller 21:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing The Horizon[edit]

A detailed, track by track music review of an album. Copied and pasted from some website "with permission". 208.57.241.61 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not for an encyclopedia -Andrew 21:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

took off all of the review except song names... hope those are ok.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by RHaworth. Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken broccoli alfredo[edit]

WP:NOT a howto guide or a cookbook. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot at that time that there is a transwiki-please tag for these things (I knew, but it left me). Please close, I withdraw nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity to the Extreme[edit]

article subject non-notable; article appears to have sole purpose of bringing attention to a local high school student's personal website/creation ERcheck 04:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - I go to the maker of this "religion" high school and it is more than just one kid's creation. CTTE has a very strong following in our town even though many still consider it rediculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.66.6 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 1 November 2005

  • Can I tell you a story? When I was in high school my friends and I decided to call going to the drinking fountain "a libation to Poseidon". We thought it was hilarious. When I was in college, I created the Church of the Pizza with Everything, dedicated to spreading the good news that the universe is, in fact, a pizza with Everything on it, including the pizza itself. I have no doubt that a lot of people where you're from are just tickled pink about their little in-joke, but it just doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. It should be deleted. --DavidConrad 07:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7. Nothing in the article establishes or alleges notability. - Sensor 02:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A7 does not apply to organizations -- only people. -- Captain Disdain 02:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arguably the article is not about the fake church but was written as a hagiography about one Josh. That's why I suggested A7. If not speedy-eligible, then delete as NN vanity. - Sensor 03:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I see what you mean. I think that'd be a stretch, though. -- Captain Disdain 04:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ERcheck 02:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The article is about an organizaiton, not a person and therefore is not covered by A7
Vote struck; this anonymous user, 69.177.66.6, already voted above. Also note that this user has only 7 edits total: 5 to this page, and 2 to Christianity to the Extreme. -Silence 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability standards apply to all articles, not just people ones. An obscure organization confined to a single town is almost never noteworthy enough to merit an article. Wikipedia is meant to consistently represent all opinions and matters with an equal level of depth, not just the random issues that happen to be of interest to editors working on it, no matter how trivial. Otherwise our skewed focus on articles would be even worse than it currently is. -Silence 21:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial_Heads_of_Port_Cresson_and_Bassa_Cove[edit]

Considering that the locations this article is about are redlinks, I'm not sure this is necessary information. ♠PMC♠ 03:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think there is some interesting history connected to this, but I don't know where to find any sources. I think this should be reworked into a stub on the history of Port Cresson and Bassa Cove. - Dalbury 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verifiable. Also there will need to be a link from History of Liberia or something, otherwise it's just orphaned. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to History of Liberia if verifiable. Otherwise, delete Tedernst 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into articles on Port Cresson and Bassa Cove. I'm unfamiliar with the history, but a Google search suggests that these colonies did not last long enough to warrant separate lists of the colonial heads. —BrianSmithson 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did anyone else notice that the article claims the Chief Magistrate from 1838 to 1839 was one Wesley Johnson, which happens to be a candidate for deletion as of 31 October? This may be a coincidence. - Sensor 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think it is a coincidence. This article was created more than a year ago. - Dalbury 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'm not really sure what it is, coincidence or what...I found this article through looking at what linked to Wesley Johnson, and this was it. Then I threw them both on AFD. ♠PMC♠ 02:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see this link --redstucco 10:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Chau[edit]

Band doesn't meet WP:Music yet so their members can't really claim notability either. See also Corbin Chau. Delete. Dvyost 20:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Chau[edit]

Nonnotable player from nn band; see also Connor Chau. Delete. Dvyost 20:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi Monastery[edit]

Needs to be deleted so Corpus christi monastery can be moved here. Alternatively, the quality of Corpus christi monastery may not be good enough to consider keeping around, but if it is indeed notable, as the article claims it to be, then it should be cleaned up under the new name. --Spring Rubber 01:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. This one because it has no content, and Corpus christi monastery because there is no claim to being notable other than the first Dominican monastery in the USA. Being old is not much of a claim to notability. ♠DanMS 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that AfD is not the place to take an article that should be deleted so that another article on the same topic can be moved to that space - that would be Wikipedia:Requested moves. No vote. BD2412 T 02:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this article under A3. It is merely a link to the Corpus christi monastery article. Part of the problem is that a substantial part of the Corpus christi article is a copyvio of the order's web page see [3] with the contact details at the bottom. The article proposed to be moved needs a substantial cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually, after further investigation, the entire Corpus christi article is a copyvio from different parts (home page and history) of the website. Should we speedy delete that article under copyvio and speedy delete this one under A3? --Spring Rubber 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one can be speedied under A3. However, as at least part of the article isn't from a commercial content provider but from the Monastery itself it will have to go through the normal process for AfD/copyvio. It would have to be nominated for deletion for AfD or listed as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I'll speedy this one, but what do you recommend we do with the other one? Obviously it can't stay as it is. Should we put it under cleanup, Afd, or copyvio? --Spring Rubber 03:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would list it as a copyvio at this stage. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken care of. I put this up for speedy delete-A3 and put the other one on copyvio. I guess that settles it. I just wonder how long the copyvio case will take with all of the backlog there. --Spring Rubber 04:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo the Cougar[edit]

Plain offensive (homophobic) and stupid Budgiekiller 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (e.g. "Cosmo is usually one of the homosexual students on campus who are welcomed as long as they maintain strict celibacy." - COME ON FOLKS!) Budgiekiller 21:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless mascots for American university track teams now warrant their own articles. Saberwyn 21:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The homophobic and insensitive lines should clearly be deleted, as should the list of names (I can't verify them and it looks like they're simply on the short end of a flameware somewhere), however cosmo could arguably be deserving of a page. --Bachrach44 21:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're really looking for a keep and major rewrite then? Volunteers? Budgiekiller 22:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was page history moved to Cringleford, redirect deleted -- Francs2000 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cringleford/Temp[edit]

temporary page no longer needed (?) Melaen 14:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crouchjump[edit]

Seems to be created by the founder of the clan as some sort of vanity article, its not notable, and nothing links there anyway. The linked article Phil house should also be deleted for the same reason. jeffthejiff(talk) 13:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Halperin[edit]

All entries were deleted by the anonymous user at IP address 24.13.108.15, who also deleted the afd 
notice in the article. I also reverted the article.  - Dalbury 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose its deletion, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

nothing but POV, and hoaxish sounding. -Andrew 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or rewrite a real article about Daniel Halperin. Is he a fictional character? -Andrew 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are real Daniel Halperins in a Google search, but it is highly unlikely any of them have performed any of the feats attribute to David Halperin in this article. - Dalbury 22:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-evident nonsense and hoax. --Metropolitan90 02:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reference provided which can verify the content of the article. See WP:V. --BenjaminTsai 05:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy, and delete redirect. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do stars we see actually exist?[edit]

Delete personal essay. Better than a lot of them, but still not encyclopedic. --Trovatore 03:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • amend to userfy or delete per discussion below.--Trovatore 01:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Meanwhile, would it be a good idea to get rid of his email so he doesn't get spammed? -- RattleMan 03:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dvyost 03:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but it's rather poetic nonetheless.--Sean Black | Talk 03:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --rob 03:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or maybe userfy, actually. I mean, it's not encyclopedic material, obviously, but at least it's not complete crap like most of the stuff we remove; maybe he'd like to keep it. (Though his assertion that famous astronomers haven't realized that these stars are actually very old is kinda, uh, presumptious. But oh well.) -- Captain Disdain 08:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a personal essay. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. This is the first edit by a new user. There is clearly potential in this user, and it wouldn't be out of place on a userpage. (Or if not, Delete.)--Apyule 14:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination, with the added comment that the technical predicates for the article are mostly correct, but the assertion that astronomers don't realize this is inaccurate. It figures prominently into cosmological theory. See Quasars, Timeline of the Universe, etc. In fact, the very fact that this is realized is what has allowed for the creation of Hertzsprung-Russell Diagrams. Time (and therefore 'young') is measured very differently on an astronomic scale. The critical analysis aspect of the article, however, shows potential, and the right kind of thinking for scientific synthesis. I wouldn't consider it inappropriate to Userfy, though with more information available, I'd think the user wouldn't want to; plus, I'm new, and therefore don't know per se what would constitute 'appropriate' for user pages. SchrodingersRoot 18:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to user page per Captain Distain Tedernst 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. - Sensor 01:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Otherwise, can I have it on my userpage?Crusading composer 23:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, because deleting it outright will only send the wrong message to the author. Andrew123 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or merge with If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Edwardian 06:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 02:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Restoration Team[edit]

So they have a website and forum, and they get into Wikipedia? Frankly I don't see why they really need their own article. It's only really relavent for mentions in articles on Doctor Who DVD releases, not an entire article. FredOrAlive 23:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I said above. - FredOrAlive 23:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just a bunch of fans. These are the people who digitally clean up, remaster and restore archival Doctor Who films for commercial DVD release, mostly on a volunteer basis. They are, at the very least, notable, so I'm not sure what criteria for deletion the nominator is invoking here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Steve Roberts, the head of the team, has requested on their forum that the article be removed, if possible. Angmering 00:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are, at the very least, notable Remastering old TV shows makes you MORE than notable? Some strange new meaning of the word "notable" I was previously unaware of. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Their restorations have been made avalible on commerical DVDs. Also per Khaosworks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Khaosworks, or at very least Merge into Doctor Who on Region 1 DVD and Doctor Who on Region 2 DVD.--Sean Black | Talk 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason why relevant articles can't include a link to the RT site which is always going to be more up to date than any Wikipedia entry. RT have requested deletion. Joe King 00:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the subject doesn't want it is no reason to delete an article. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite notable, and a group whose efforts have been widely covered in media. I'm not quite certain why Roberts wants the article deleted, so revisions may be required to address his concerns. If he's wanting some sort of anonymity that boat sailed several years ago. 23skidoo 06:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more notable than High schools --TimPope 17:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as very notable to specific circles - fans of the series, obviously, but also to people working in television and film preservation and restoration. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Redvers. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons above. They've developed significant techniques in the field of value beyond their Dr Who work. Bondegezou 20:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domeafavorbuddy.com[edit]

As per WP:WEB, this article is about a website of minimal importance. Alexa rating for the site is 3,905,771, with no other sites linking to it. [4] A Google search finds one result, a link to the site.[5] Lack of independent information about the site also raises concerns about verifiability of the article. --Allen3 talk 03:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domotic maid[edit]

Google gives no hits for this away from mirrors, and the related article Domobot has been deleted recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domobot. Susvolans ⇔ 17:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic oppression[edit]

seems like it belongs in wiktionary, if it belongs anywhere

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 09:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pretty useless. Powers of i 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either a made-up term or POV bait. —BrianSmithson 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Keep. Still seems like POV bait, but the term's notable enough (75,700 hits on Google). With the right balance, this could make a good article someday. —BrianSmithson 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do agree with BrianSmithson, and something will have to be done fast to place appropriate contents, to begin with few sentences, in the article. --Bhadani 14:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just added few words by way of introductory contents. I am sure that this stub has good potential to mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 16:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  05:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elks on the Up and Up[edit]

Google search shows no hits for this book, and the title and claims strain credibility. Delete as unverifiable. Dvyost 02:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No Google hits, and what researcher would know that much about Nunavut and its wildlife and STILL call it a province? Devotchka 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when i first looked at it I was just doing stub sorting, I did not check facts. As I googled it too and turned up no results I doubt the credability. Chemturion 04:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I want to delete the article about this non-existent book's author, I guess the book itself oughta go, too. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know why the title and claims should strain credibility, except perhaps for the 'best-seller' claim. A study of elk breeding and migration certainly seems plausible, and it's not unknown for serious natural-history books to have lighthearted titles (e.g., Mice All Over by Peter Crowcroft). Having said that, I don't see any evidence that this book really exists. Perodicticus 13:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devotchka, it's even worse than that: look at the author's article. Considering that Nunavut didn't even exist until 1999, how exactly could an author who died in 1952 write a book about it? Delete hoax. Bearcat 05:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Hoax, unverfiable and there are no elk in Nunavut. Caribou: yes, lots and they do migrate. Moose: some in the south but the Tundra is not their favoured habitat. I will also be putting Tyler Harlan up for deletion. Luigizanasi 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • {It's already up...) Bearcat 05:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, my eye failed me. Anyway, voted on that one too. :-) Luigizanasi 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately you can't speedy just for being a hoax. Check out CSD G1... --Dvyost 05:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know, we have to follow procedures. How about for being patent nonsense? I change my vote, I meant patent nonsense, not hoax. :-) Luigizanasi 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suspect that criterion was really meant to convey something more along the lines of "the determination of hoax status may require more than one set of eyes; sometimes what looks like a hoax to you might actually be just a bad article about a legitimate topic". I don't think it was ever meant to suggest that hoaxes somehow have an inherent right to stick around. Bearcat 05:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I dunno... It doesn't seem like "This does not include hoaxes" has a lot of ambiguity in it. Wouldn't that more than one set of eyes mean the AfD process? Don't worry, I don't think it's saying that hoaxes have the right to stick around (I'm the one who flagged this one, in fact), only that they need to be AfDed first to confirm that they're fake. After all, it's not as if letting the article live for an extra few days is going to do any harm; it's tagged as an AfD, and who's going to come to Wikipedia to look up "Elks on the Up and Up" in the next week anyway? =) --Dvyost 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Understood; I'm just saying that I have seen obvious hoaxes, where the AFD consensus went in favour of speedying, which then got speedied in advance of the formal AFD closing with no objections. So I don't particularly think that voting to speedy when something is obviously beyond question as a hoax is an unreasonable thing to do. Bearcat 06:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per hoax arguments. --maclean25 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and rename to epoline. --Edcolins 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epoline®[edit]

Advertising. I'm not sure if this qualifies for speedy deletion so I'm listing it here. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as rewritten, but rename to Epoline without the registered sign. — JIP | Talk 14:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Xpendersx 13:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don's see why this should be deleted, epoline is the range of online service of the EPO, free of charge and a service to the IP community - it is not advertising. Can you give some info on what to do to avoid deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.242 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as rewritten by myself. Moving it to epoline would be a wise and nice move. As you can see from the "What links here" page I had requested such an article since a long time. --Edcolins 14:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Epoline. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as per Rune Welsh. I've never seen any precedent here for having trademark symbols in article titles, and I don't think there's any legal basis for requiring it here. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it looks ok now - if there is need for more epoline info, such as detailed info on the whole range of products and services - I would be happy to supply. This is my first wiki experience so I still need to work out how this is done properly.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.134.242 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was discuss with Patimokkha PRECEPT RELATED TO THE ENVIORNMENT - see above. -- RHaworth 13:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essa writting map[edit]

Some sort of personal essay or original research. Delete or userfy. — JIP | Talk 15:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; seems original research, as far as the article is currently written. If not, I will be glad to change my vote. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty bash[edit]

Nonnotable "annual" party which was held for 3 years at a community college. Not verifiable or notable. 66.207.142.71 04:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it was a longrunning event it could be worthy of a mention on the college's article but it lasted two years. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local community event. Non-notable. ERcheck 04:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. —BrianSmithson 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 02:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferret Crossing[edit]

Delete per nomination; nn site. LichYoshi 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Majority Catholic Supreme Court[edit]

Delete un-encyclopedic - may rate a mention on SCOTUS article, but not its own article.--Rogerd 17:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia subject—this is nothing but a potential statistic. Postdlf 17:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive change in Supreme Court's composition, and major historical fact worthy of debate during deliberations. 31 October 2005.
Unsigned comment by anonymous user, who also vandalized my vote.[6] Postdlf 18:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to Delete per Postdlf's logic - makes sense--Elliskev 14:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States topic as a good fit.
  • Comment—Regarding "merging," I like the new SCOTUS demographics article, but I don't think this should exist as a redirect even if the "fact" contained in this stub gets appropriately mentioned there. Deletion is still the proper vote here, and deleting this has no consequence on any independent editorial decisions regarding demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Postdlf 22:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I can't really disagree with that, but I also think a merge (which would just be the redirect at this point) would be harmless. BD2412 T 22:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. unencyclopediac, POV. "Demographics" article is all that is needed --NealMcB 01:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tempshill. --Benna 02:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is bad, and an article dedicated solely to this fact will be hopelessly POV. mmmbeerT / C / ? 11:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is so bad. What is the point? Monkey Tennis 16:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Constitution of the United States demands the seperation of Religion & Govenment (Church & State). Mightberight/wrong 14:07 ,1 November 2005
  • Delete; as per User:Postdlf, a redirect is unnecessary and would cater to a POV. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the naming of this article borders on OR. Who would type that in? Jacqui ★ 00:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Minority Protestant Supreme Court[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion, but not a speedy candidate, so sending to AfD. I suggest merging this and First Majority Catholic Supreme Court into a single article on Composition of the United States Supreme Court by religion, which would surely be of interest to some. BD2412 T 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete POV fork and point scoring. Our Samuel Alito article has more of this bigoted nonsense too - this article is basically complaining that there are too many Jews and Catholics on the Supreme Court. Capitalistroadster 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unencyclopedic. This is nothing but a potential statistic, and one about which nothing of value can be independently said. Postdlf 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What more can be said beyond this one factoid? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 19:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've started Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, which I think encompasses this information in a truly encyclopedic presentation. This can redirect there. BD2412 T 19:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dalbury 19:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. jengod 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Regarding "merging," I like the new SCOTUS demographics article, but I don't think this should exist as a redirect even if the "fact" contained in this stub gets appropriately mentioned there. Deletion is still the proper vote here, and will have no consequence on any independent editorial decisions regarding demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States. Postdlf 22:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Agree. - Dalbury 22:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jkelly 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Benna 02:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Andyqaz 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Put the factoid in the demographics article but it's not so terribly significant as all that. David | Talk 10:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the naming of this article borders on OR. Who would type that in? Jacqui ★ 00:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flexual[edit]

This was nominated for speedy deletion as "nonsense". It's not nonsense, it's just not very notable. So I'm moving it to AfD. RSpeer 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete neologism --Trovatore 04:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not nonsense at all, although it is far from being an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it could be moved to the dictionary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.4.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 08:56:49 UTC
  • The encyclopaedia subject would be the concept of flexuality, as per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives). I find no sources providing evidence that there is such a concept. Delete. Uncle G 13:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flexure is a well-known medical term in use in ALL medical colleges and among the medical fraternity. The splenic and hepatic flexures of the peritoneum are well known since the time of Henry Gray. However, the meaning elaborated in the article is probably a neologism and non notable. Not encyclopediac. Delete unless somebody wants to re-work the medical aspects....perhaps, i will even do it. Prashanthns 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article after editing the Wesleyan University article to include reference to the great diversity of sexual identities and words to describe those identities there. All of the terms that they use already had wikipedia articles except for this one, so I made this article so that people would know what I was talking about in the wesleayan article. Is there perhaps a better way to do this, perhaps within the Wesleyan University page, since I'm pretty sure that the only time someone would end up at this article is through a link from the Wesleyan University page. Thanks for your indulgence, I'm new at wikipedia, so I'm also not entirely sure how to sign my comments and things. I just copied my last comment and changed the timestamp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.4.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 23:27:48 UTC
    • Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with our verifiability and no original research policies. An encyclopaedia article on the concept of flexuality would have to be verifiable and not original research. It would have to cite reliable sources to show that such a concept existed in the first place and that it had also been peer reviewed and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge by other people. No such sources have been cited, or can be found.

      In contrast, a Google Groups search reveals that people consider "flexual" to be a silly neologism, that is "just another in an endless line of weasel words", and that makes them want to barf. It appears that this concept, and indeed these words, have no traction outside of their creators. Uncle G 01:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you follow the hyperlink on the word "unsigned", you'll find out what to do, by the way. Uncle G 11:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. It's interesting, but not encyclopedic. - Sensor 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok with it being deleted, and after looking at some of the policy articles, the resons for its deletion are beginning to make sense to me, but without it the wesleyan article seems incomplete, since it references the term "flexual" without providing any context for what it means. Any ides on how to fix that? I'd rather not remove all reference to "flexual" from the wesleyan article, since queer issues are very important on campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.4.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-01 03:37:37 UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Davis[edit]

nn vanity Gator(talk) 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator(talk) 16:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hold workshops and lectures as well. Big whoop. Vanity. --CastAStone 17:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the area where this artist lives and found the information very useful. I was having trouble find this information elsewhere. Maybe magicians have a way of making their sites disapear. I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC), original creator of article, who proceeded to remove all delete votes[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Frank Davis & Company"[edit]

nn vanity see Gator(talk) 16:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:12.110.196.19, original creator of article, deleted all votes and attempted to pass himself off as IP address 14.118.184.16, as if the edit history wouldn't betray him. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Gator(talk) 16:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Materially idendical to above AfD'd article. --CastAStone 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I agree that the content of the two articles are the same, however, I wouldn't have found one without the other. I agree with the other "keep" poster. I can't imagine, by visiting the sites, that this information will remain identical. -- Anonymous vote/comment entered from IP 12.110.196.19 - Dalbury 17:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 after discounting sockpuppet votes. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sun Password[edit]

Wikipedia is not a password resource, GameFAQ, or whatever. Appropriate gaming related websites should be used for this purpose. Some guy 17:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, wikipedia is not a web host. Kappa 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. It would have been more appropriate as a snippet in Golden Sun. PJM 17:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOLD your fire, This article has not been up for a day. Do you know that someone tried to make it dissapear before I even created it? It is a link from the article on Golden Sun and should be separate because someone only wants to know about passwords in depth when he needs to use one. As for the article's usefulness, GOLLY !!! I know that there is no other place with the information. I know that the knowledge of what a password does is pieced out among - isolated - gamers. Wiki's structure is designed with the intention of gathering and distilling knowledge that is scattered among isolated persons. As for the possibility that the knowledge is solely useful to gamers, is this a criterion for deleting it? Why not pick another group and delete the the entries that are uniquely helpful to that group?
  • Delete I suggest the editor of this article to create a wiki in WikiCities or other similar resource to start a wiki about the game. I'm sorry, but we are not a GameFAQ repository. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to administrator: User 72.227.132.250 blanked the discussion page for this AfD. I've reverted it but think it should be monitored or something. Also just realized author of article removed a request for speedy deletion from the page.Some guy 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a bulletin board for exchanging passwords between players of a computer game. As per Kappa, Wikipedia is not a free wiki host or a resource for conducting business. It is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 00:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as having little or no context, at least for an encyclopedia, and a completely inappropriate use of Wikipedia space. Block from recreation. Jkelly 00:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If You Read Only One Thing, Make This It GameFAQs says its not the place for this, and frankly the purpose of Wikipedia may not be to store every little thing for every little game, it is meant to compile the knowledge of it's user in a way that makes it conveniant. I see no problem in allowing this page to continue, and people that have a bone to pick with GameFAQs shouldn't take it out on this rather nice idea.
    • Delete Wikipedia is not a messageboard. It is an encyclopædia. Use WikiCities or a free messageboard service. -LichYoshi 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Golden Sun Password article is collecting facts and knowledge. This article is being accused of having no context of misusing Wikipedia as a message board and as an "every little thing of a little game." For the sake of argument, let us say that these accusations are true: What we are still left with is a demand that the article be deleted yesterday. What we are left with is that Wikipedia is not for the likes of you. This article is not a fungus or a virus that will contaminate Wikipedia. This article is not a cancer that is taking over Wikipedia. I believe that the demands that the article be deleted are consuming more Wikipedia resources than the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraGT (talk • contribs)
    • One good thing about a slow process like this is that we can try to explain why it doesn't belong. In the end passwords are part of the game, but listing them don't help readers to understand the game better, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. You say it's taking a lot of resources to get it deleted, that's true, but if it says wikipedia will be taken over by similar pages of game passwords/tips/challenges/whatever which will end up consuming a lot more resources than this discussion. Kappa 00:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but good luck with your wikicities endeavors, if you listen to Rune Welsh's good advice. Jacqui ★ 00:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The statement that passwords do not help readers to understand of the game sounds as though you know what you are talking about but the statement is not true. This is like saying that a picture of a particular species of plant does not contribute to an understanding of plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraGT (talk • contribs)

Comment: You aren't allowed to vote twice. Also, please sign your comments with three or four tildes (~~~~). Also, a picture is nothing like a password. I have played the game and the password does not contribute to understanding of it. Some guy 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I did not mean to look like a clown, obviously. I thought that signing in appended a signature. I did not realized that every person who wants this gets to visit this discussion and count as a zomg! vote. I thought that the "keeps" and "deletes" were captions to cue you in on the comment's intent. I do appreciate your explaining that without rubbing it in. So let's see, CobraGT<CobraGT>CobraGT 14:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)</CobraGT> CobraGT[reply]
Comment: CobraGT has only contributed to the page in question and this page.Some guy 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wikipedia is to inform people. This article will serve people to understand everything they need for Golden Sun and it's password system. Those who say it doesn't are only willing to troll. Mamsaac
Comment: Mamsaac has only contributed to this page. Some guy 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does that make their comments invalid?
Comment:I don't know, I've just noticed people pointing that out in other articles for deletion. I suppose it could indicate the individual is a sock puppet. Some guy 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not the sock puppet of anyone. I just go to a board on GameFAQs and I've known CobraGT for more than a year (I met him on a Golden Sun board.. casually). I know how much people need a PASSWORD guide for Golden Sun.
  • Delete: Not pertinent to an encyclopedia. Information is probably on the External linked sites. Srl 01:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's purpose is to give information right? Well, this article gives information for the Gameboy Advance game, Golden Sun. It will help new players and/or other people who play this game understand Golden Sun's password system. It also helps the player as if you don't have the original Golden Sun, you don't have a password to use. People who just bought this game (part 2) can simply choose a password from the list to use. Isaac

Comment: Previous user (68.190.233.64) has only contributed to this page. User Isaac has only contributed to one nonrelated page.Some guy 22:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as its rewritten form. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo[edit]

"Gonzalo" is a Spanish proper name and it is not appropriate to have it point to one person in particular 68.92.32.23 04:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Or you could put up a disambiguation page. Given that anyone can do that at any time he or she needs an article about another Gonzalo, the nom seems unnecessary and may not get much traction on RfD. --Trovatore 05:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a Spaniard I can say that Gonzalo is a very common name for Spanish people, just do a search in Wikipedia and you'll see a lot of "Gonzalos". Gonzalo should be a disambiguation page. Tsuba 06:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be kept now that it is a disambiguation page. Just added an entry to it myself. AndyJones 18:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambig Tedernst 19:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GuardDog 02:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Half Assed Morning Show[edit]

Not notable BeteNoir 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 07:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I like the idea of a half-assed article for a half assed radio show. Stu 14:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the fact that the author (who probably lives in Minnesota) can't spell their own state's name Leadpipevigilante 10:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 07:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HostENZ and subsidiaries[edit]

This is a collective nomination for HostENZ and its subsidiaries, namely Aspire Design, Computer Fluency in Training, Techknow, Carley Network Media Ltd, Joomla Studio, Seqeuro and Tierra Sistemi.

HostENZ appears to be a local Hamilton, New Zealand company; no assertion is made, and indeed there is no indication that it meets the criteria in WP:CORP. Pilatus 14:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the whole lot, including redirects. Doesn't assert notability, and looks too much like an advertisement effort to spread the name. Lupo 10:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human Feed[edit]

non notability Melaen 14:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject is non-notable and almost non-existent. Anville 15:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. I have also nominated for deletion the band because it has not released any album so far (besides a single demo). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A demo CD from a band with no releases? - Dalbury 17:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane preparedness[edit]

Apparently copy-pasted from FEMA (also seen here. Possibly delete as copyvio, or transwiki to wikibooks? Rd232 talk 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it's from FEMA, it's public domain, but doesn't seem encyclopedic. Probably should just be an external link from Hurricane. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if it can be rewritten as a non-how-to article, I'd keep it. -- Kjkolb 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's inherently a how-to article. It's also redundant given that hurricane is a good article. Also as RD232 mentioned, it's cut and pasted from elsewhere. --Bachrach44 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP. I came to it because I was just thinking of creating an article about it. We just got over (not completely) Hurricane Wilma, and I think that this article might have made the life of many people easier. And I do believe it should be a separate article from Hurricane. Thtat being said, it definitely needs cleanup. I will try to help in the next few days--AAAAA 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Needs to be rewritten to go into more than just what an individual does such as issuing of a state of an emergency by the governor, what FEMA does to prepare, other organizations such as law enforcement and utilities. Definitely a topic that can be expanded upon and not a how-to article. --Holderca1 05:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cresswell[edit]

  • Delete Composer does not appear to be notable enough. very few (5 or less) hits on google Bwithh 05:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have looked up the Australia New Zealand database which came up with some articles in The Mercury about pieces he has written. While he is still studying at the conservatorium, in my view he is notable enough. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 06:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If CR says this guy is noteworthy, that's good enough for me. The original entry wasn't more than a single-sentence nanostub which the author politely asked to have "unblocked." It could still use some cleanup, but it's a good start. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about educating and sharing of knowledge. There is a deep lack of accurate information available regarding Australian composers and performers. Please consider the possibility that a lack of google hits does not equate to the importance or noteriety of an individual.

Brian Orchy— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Orchy (talk • contribs) UTC 05:49, 31 October 2005

  • Keep. I'll take Roadster's word for it, and agree with Brian Orchy that Google's not the best tool for finding information about some topics; composers who don't work with pop or rock music are unfortunately all too often one of them. (And Brian, please sign your votes -- you can do that by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~ . That'll add your name and the time to your comment.) -- Captain Disdain 08:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Try looking on Australian google and you still only get 600 hits. And they include furniture makers named Ian Cresswell, Assistant Fisheries secretary called Ian Cresswell, Angling coaches called Ian Cresswell and not very many for the PhD student in Music Compostion called Ian Cresswell. He may well become notable but he is not yet. Not even in Oz. Marcus22 10:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ian ≡ talk 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on my trust in CR. I do also agree that the Google test doesn't get everything right. Jacqui ★ 15:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignoring the Google test, as a musician and music student myself I regret to say that I simply am not aware of this gentleman having done anything worthy of note. I have neither seen him mentioned in any journals, nor come across any of his compositions; indeed, I had not heard of him before I read the article, and I regret to say that we cannot possibly have an article on every single music graduate that ever existed. If I had even heard of one or two of his compositions, or heard that he had obtained a resident composer or musical directorship position with a (reasonably) notable orchestra outside of Wikipedia, I would not advocate deletion. As talented as this fellow be, I fear he does not meet the Wikipedia levels of notability that are usually expected of musicians. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 15:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster--A Y Arktos (Talk) 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per NicholasTurnbull. -- Kjkolb 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Nicholas Turnbull. The argument to keep seems to be that he's turned up in the paper and he's won a few awards. Well, so have my art professors, but they're not in Wikipedia (and I don't think they should be). Just doesn't pass the notability test for me. Will be happy to revote in a few years. :) —BrianSmithson 21:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It would still appear that detractors of Mr Cresswell are still relying on internet based sources. My intention is to ADD an internet based source so people can find out about Mr Cresswell. For those in need of academic support, there is discussion of Ian Cresswell's piano concerto in Larry Sitsky's book (details as follows):

Australian piano music of the twentieth century / Larry Sitsky. BOOK Westport, CT : Praeger, 2005. xviii, 335 p. : ill., music ; 24 cm. 0-313-32286-4 Bibliography: p. 283-292. Includes index. AMC Library number: REF 786.20994/1

Brian Orchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.149.168 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Brian, there are no "detractors" of Mr Cresswell. No-one here has any feelings one way or the other. There are just arguments for deleting or keeping this article. As to the Internet: we all rely on the internet for sources unless we happen to the subject of an article personally. Marcus22 08:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based largely on trusting User:Capitalistroadster's judgement. Perhaps a review after the article has a chance to expand is in order. Jkelly 00:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Avoid systemic bias. He's notable. "A few awards" is enough to get to that point. - Sensor 02:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. -- DS1953 talk 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not yet notable. One of the awards is from ANU -- his undergrad institution -- awarded to the "leading composition student" each year. The other, I was not able to identify. pfctdayelise 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Cinema Society[edit]

Film club with no assertion of notability. Delete. CLW 09:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. As the nomination doesn't even mention what misinformation is about, and it would need over 50 deletes in order to sawy the outcome, I'm closing this one earlier. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Management Calcutta[edit]

Misinformation

  • Keep "so fix it" Zeimusu | Talk page 13:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's no misinformation ther. I went through it pretty well.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i don't quite see what is wrong with the article. If there are mistaken facts there: correct them. Chelman 13:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fine to me. As said before, if you know better - fix it. Also, you should sign your entries. PJM 13:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep be bold & fix. Youngamerican 13:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very bad nomination. An institute of repute with famous alumni. I cant see the minsinformation. In any case, not criteria for deltion. Lot of work going on to improve the site. See the discussion page. STRONG KEEP Prashanthns 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AFD is not cleanup, subject is a notable established university. flowersofnight 15:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think there's misinformation in this, fix it yourself, hash it out on the talk page or take it to cleanup. This is a misuse of AfD. Jacqui *2 15:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Some sentences are in advertisement style (e.g., the vision of the institute...) but this should be noted with the POV tag, not by listing the article for deletion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is POV and/or needs globalized perspective, but definitely no delete.doles 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep One of the top educational institutions in India. Bad faith nomination. Tintin 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- one of the best business schools of this part of the world. Contents shall get modified gradually over a period of time. --Bhadani 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can't the keep be speedied ? This is almost as bad as nominating Harvard or Yale for AfD. Tintin 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy keep: The nomination itself is ridiculous. --Ragib 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tertiary institutions are generally accepted to be notable. We have had no delete votes other than the anon nominator and plenty of keeps and speedy keeps so this vote should be wrapped up early. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, under assumption that nom believed AfD to be cleanup. Jkelly 00:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Problem is, nominations like this encourage more of the same.--Nicodemus75 01:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Inappropriate/mistaken use of AFD. --rob 01:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ineptability[edit]

A word created by a student this year, used within one school. JPD (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 Record Sales[edit]

Article fork written by anon after The Jackson 5 was cleaned up to move sales information (which I am not even sure should be included; the source for the album sales is not verifiable) to Jackson 5 discography. Delete, no merge. FuriousFreddy 17:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relisting on today's page for community input. Thryduulf 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. --FuriousFreddy 18:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarle Roar Sæbø[edit]

Listing with No Vote. Contributed by an anon with no other contribs, and reads like a vanity entry. Standards on magazine writers aren't very solid yet, and I'm not sure whether contributing an article to "Nordic Intellectual Property Review" is enough to make a person notable by our current standards, hence the no vote. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If kept, this should probably be moved and redirected to a title that uses the standard English character set, as I beleive that's currently the consensus for such articles. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY DELETED -- Francs2000 18:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason roof[edit]

Non-notable, and an attack page to boot. Delete. Colin Kimbrell 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe The Peacock[edit]

  • Delete Non-notable website by non-notable author. advertising / marketing abuse of wikipedia. Bwithh 01:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising of website. ERcheck 02:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he wants to advertise here, he'd better slip me a twenty. Deltabeignet 04:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tedernst 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Klonimus 06:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, JtP here . Just thought I'd mention that I didn't enter this, nor did I ask anyone to. I don't think anyone was attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle, I think that one of the readers of the website just got excited about the project and added it to Wikipedia. No harm was intended, I'm certain. Anyway, I just thought I'd say that. Please delete this entry if it's in violation of policies (or even if it's not... I don't know that I need to be in Wikipedia, I've not really done anything noteworthy just yet).
  • Delete..website advertising..Dakota ? e 01:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Finkel[edit]

A Magic: The Gathering player that is not much more notable than any of the 6,000,000+ other players in the game. Apparently he some minor significance in the Pro Tour, which I can assure you most Magic players care little about. Very crufty fancruft.

  • Delete Slobad 14:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 09:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 14,000 hits for "Jon Finkel" magic on google. I wouldn't call an overall winner of "minor significance in the pro-tour." Is the subject of a published book. Seems to be both notable and verifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Winner of many nationnal tournaments, subject of a biography, and probably one of the very few players of Magic: the Gathering who is notable for playing Magic: the Gathering. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Top 5 all-time Magic tournament player. And any Magic player who doesn't know his name only just started playing the game. -- Grev -- Talk 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Man in Black. zellin t / c 04:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KeesjeMaduraatje[edit]

Someone who owns a weblog. NN - delete. Francs2000 18:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7 -- no assertion of notability. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Just a webblog. Not notable. Masterhatch 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 JoJan 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Smith's Count Basie Extravaganza[edit]

One-off, non-notable performance. Delete. CLW 09:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kevin Smith. --GraemeL (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kevin Smith and I'm going to suggest that a redirect be placed under this heading just in the off chase that some goes looking for this event. Stu 14:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kevin Smith. I don't really see much here worth merging -- it's unsourced, the writing is a bit unencyclopedic and there are gems like "no one really knows why, though." I would have no problem with someone adding information regarding this subject to Kevin Smith in the future, with some research, though. Jacqui ★ 15:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge anything that warrants mention & redirect per Stu Youngamerican 16:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I love KS's speaking gigs, but we don't need an article for every one. --Isotope23 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 redirect. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keygrip[edit]

Vanity, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete. Dvyost 20:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kissell[edit]

I cannot find anything on Google about this person. Delete as possible vanity page LichYoshi 06:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried Google and had the same luck. Delete as unverifiable. --Dvyost 07:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Larry Kissell" congress gets two Google hits, and neither one of them is relevant. And the writing style ("In 2005, Larry could take it no more. He decided that it was time for every day people to take back their House. He began his quest to represent the people of North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District.") is pretty far removed from NPOV and doesn't exactly make me want to believe that this is not a vanity article... If this guy's for real, I'm sure someone'll pipe up and say so; even if that happens, cleanup's a must... but until and unless that happens, though, delete. -- Captain Disdain 07:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:V as only thrre results for "Larry Kissell" Congress see [7] and none of those are relevant. Even if it were verifiable, it isn't notable as Candidates for Congress are not in themselves notable unless they have already some notable achievements to their name or hold notable positions such as members of state legislatures. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Tedernst 20:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 but make into a disambig page. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawless[edit]

Possibly not notable - did not see any matches via Google. My initial vote is Delete PJM 13:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Psy guy (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lera Boroditsky[edit]

According to the Wikipedia guidelines the person's notability should be above an average University Professor. Mrs Boroditsky is a junior faculty at Stanford. I asked the question of her notability at the Talk:Lera Boroditsky but have not received an answer. Delete abakharev 00:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • After reading the supplied sources I changed my mind from Strong Delete to Weak Delete as I still do not think she is notable enough. The Whorfian question is almost an urban folklor now, and she certainly did not invented it. The first of the new external links shows to an absolutely strange article. I am a native Russian speaker myself and I can tell that the word for the cousin is either Kuzen (pronounced similar to the English word) or Dvojurodny Brat (a simple Brat is for Brother). There is absolutely no way that a Russian (having enough command in English to follow the play) would hear cousin and decide that it means sibling. I hope that it was the error of a jurnalist not the quality of her research paper. abakharev 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --FRS 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see an article on the linguistic features mentioned in the article, but the person is non-notable. Delete --eleuthero 00:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information has been added on the revolutionary/notable aspects of this person's work with citations to articles about the work in the media (the Economist, the NPR, the Boston Globe, etc)
  • Delete unless someone can prove otherwise. Eleuthero, the topics mentioned in her article are not that unique in the linguistic realm, so I imagine you could find something on them somewhere (assuming the information isn't already here on Wikipedia in some form or another.) Devotchka 02:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added more bio information on her, including awards receieved, got her first faculty job at MIT when only 23 years old, etc.
  • Keep. The anonymous editor has provided sources which convince me of her notability. BTW, you can sign on by typing 4 tildes like this. Capitalistroadster 04:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media coverage. Kappa 04:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping basing on newspaper coverage is ridiculous. She is not a superstar. She is professor and the yardstick must be the according one. Where is her peer review? mikka (t) 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strongly agree. Using media coverage to determine professors' notability makes about as much sense as using number of academic citations to determine movie stars' notablility. flowersofnight 16:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The presence of coverage, outside of one's peers, is a large plus. It means somebody other than her peers, may be interested in reading about her. I suspect expert linguist researchers aren't coming to Wikipedia to read about the latest advances in their field. However, a regular member of the public who heard about her in the Economist, or listened to her interview on NPR, may well wish to read an article about her her. --rob 01:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Ghirlandajo 09:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. (And how many times is the same person going to say Keep?) Marcus22 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The media coverage shows she's already been judged notable. --rob 11:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rob. Perodicticus 13:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading the external links, it appears that Ms. Boroditsky's ostensible claim to fame is that as of 2004, she is beginning research into some interesting Indonesian linguistic phenomena. The rest of the links essentially say "she's a promising young scholar". If she ever publishes this new research of hers and makes a big impact on the academic world, she's welcome to come back. flowersofnight 15:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. Trollderella 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has media attention. People may want to know more about her, and would come here, the repository of all human knowledge, to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone who's garnered that much media attention is notable regardless of the level of their professorship. We shouldn't hold professors to a tougher notability standard than everyone else. —Morven 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, media interest and quote from Steven Pinker suggest to me that there is no reason to view this article as a vanity bio. Jkelly 00:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scholarly professor. Klonimus 06:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the "keep" comments above make me wanna write an article about myself, maybe they'll keep it here anyway. Не надо путать божий дар с яичницей. KNewman 18:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages[edit]

Doubtless, these lists contain a very useful information, but this is a classical, clear and transparent as a shot of vodka, case of wiktionary.

Suppose I am reading about Andorra, and I want to know its name in French. How the heck would I know where to look for? Now, look at Poland article. Its "Name" section links to wikt:Poland, and everything is nice and clear.

NOTE I consider this vote invalid, because the main opponent, Pascuale stuffed talk pages of his colleagues with a call to skew the vote, and I reserve the right to repeat this nomination. mikka (t) 21:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary to wait a fair amount of time after an AFD ends with a "keep" result before renominating. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. While there is no "official" period of time that must elapse before a renomination is made, many people consider a period of six months to be a minimum. A renomination made within a few months of the original AFD is likely to be closed early as a "speedy keep". There is no policy or guideline that a user may not inform other users of an ongoing AFD. On the contrary, there are several WikiProjects and notice boards designed to inform users of, among other things, AFDs on articles that may interest them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty aware of the rules and contrary to some heated opinions I am not a troll. I will renominate only if I decide that the vote was skewed by Pascuale. His position that all of us voting here are voting just besause "we like or don't like it" is deplorable. Unlike those who "like it", I provided serious arguments why these pages are wrong place. mikka (t) 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It is only fair to warn long-time users and contributors to a certain page that that page has come under attack. This is not skewing the vote, as I had no idea how those users would actually vote. Surely, we don't want an article's fate to be decided by people who have just stumbled into it for the first time and didn't like it! The users and contributors I warned are in no way "my colleagues" any more than any other Wikipedia users, but are indeed users who have repeatedly contributed to that page. (And, in any case, at least eight "Keep" votes so far are from users I have not contacted and whose names I have never heard, while at least one that I contacted -- Aecis -- has voted the other way. Check my user contributions for confirmation.) I am in no way "the main opponent" here. I simply consider myself responsible because I unwittingly alerted this attacker to the existence of these pages, which he has then IMMEDIATELY nominated for deletion. Is this not troll behavior? Where are the administrators when you need them? Pasquale 21:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, nominating a page for AFD when one believes it belongs at Wiktionary instead is not troll behavior. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to offer a little unsolicited advice to both aggrieved parties and hope it is taken in the spirit it is given. (With love, kindness, and pixie dust) I have often gotten into a tizzy over certain articles and as a result, have come to the conclusion that the emotional expenditure is just not worth it.
It's not worth raising your blood pressure, or upsetting you, or ruining your evening. It's not worth ruining your digestion, or your after-dinner cocktail, your birthday, or whatever is happening in your real life. Don't let the users' behavior on the Wikipedia get to you. Because it doesn't matter.
That's right - it doesn't really matter, that much, does it? I would hate to lose this information to the Wiktionary, but really, what does it matter? If you think it SHOULD be in the Wiktionary, and it stays in the Wikipedia - what difference does that make to your life? You might never have run across it. Take this pent up frustration and go for a run, or volunteer at a hospital, or hug your kids. Do something worthwhile and uncontroversial.
Once again, I hope not to get too preachy, but I think we often escalate conflicts just because we're in conflict, not for substantive reasons. At least, that's what I do. All the best to both of you. Danlovejoy 13:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and censure user Mikkalai for the reasons explained below. Pasquale 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Delete the entire Wikipedia - If it is legitimate for a user to advocate the deletion of a page which has cost two years of work by hundreds of people, WITHIN MINUTES OF DISCOVERING ITS EXISTENCE, and easily gain the support or benign neutrality of several other users, then there is no point for the Wikipedia to continue existing. Pontius Pilates, indeed! Pasquale 15:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The List of country names in various languages, like the List of European regions with alternative names, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, and other such, is of exceptional value to linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists, and should be preserved. These lists have been very popular for the past couple of years and have attracted many users and contributors, who have found them fascinating and of high educational value. I find it extremely objectionable that a Johnny-come-lately such as mikka should, upon discovering the existence of such lists, take such bold initiative as to advocate the deletion of articles he personally has no use for. This is hardly what the Wikipedia is about. I submit that mikka should be censured and, in fact, expelled from the Wikipedia. Pasquale 17:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pasquale must learn to behave in a civilized way during disagreements, or they are looking for big troubles eventually to run into. In particular, God forbid to have Pasquale as an admin. mikka (t) 18:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Angr, I hope my "lack of civilization" is not a valid reason for deleting these pages! Perhaps you, as an administrator, can clarify that point. Lack of civilization indeed! I have 16 months of very civilized contributions behind me and I have never once filed an AFD, let alone a gratuitous and frivolous one. Pasquale 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course no one's lack of civility is a reason to keep or to delete a page. And indeed the number of "keep" votes cast at this point makes it extremely unlikely that there will be consensus to delete. However, filing AFDs is not uncivil behavior (I have filed a fair number of them in my ten months here). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, can you please explain to me why I can't have a contiguous space below my vote, explaining my reasons, without another contributor interjecting his personal attacks on me? Would you kindly move the above injected three paragraphs to somewhere below, together with the rest of this person's diatribe, so I can have my reasons immediately following my vote? As an administrator, can you please decide this matter? I am trying to be very civilized here, but I don't know if that's true for everyone concerned. Pasquale 21:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss one's behavior is WP:RFC/USER, not VfD. mikka (t) 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you strongly feel the articles should be kept, but the above comment [i.e. that Mikka should be censured for calling the AFD] is really uncalled-for. Mikka has been at Wikipedia for two years (about eight months longer than you yourself) and so can hardly be called a Johnny-come-lately. He's entitled to his opinion that this information is more appropriate at Wiktionary than here--he never claimed the information isn't useful, merely that it's in the wrong place. The information will be just as usable by linguists, historians, toponymists, and other social scientists at Wiktionary as it is here. Mikka has done nothing warranting censure or banning from Wikipedia. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, by "Johnny-come-lately" I meant "Johnny-come-lately" to these particular lists. It is obvious that Mikka has just stumbled into these lists. He first made some remarks the other day on Talk:List of European regions with alternative names, denigrating and ridiculing that particular list. I explained to him that that list closely parallels others, such as the List of country names in various languages, the List of European cities with alternative names, the List of European rivers with alternative names, all of which he was not aware of, and so what does he do? He turns around and advocates for the deletion of all these pages, whose existence he has just become aware of. Maybe I am not a very bold Wikipedia contributor, but I would never even think of doing something like that. And, yes, I do find this behavior extremely objectionable and censurable. Frankly, I am amazed that you fail to see how inconsiderate this is. To me, it would be as if someone with no interest in linguistic reconstruction should argue for the deletion of your Proto-Celtic language article. I think it's truly insane! And, furthermore, it is idiotic to buttress this kind of argumentation by ridiculing the notion that someone just might want to know what Zimbabwe is called in Finnish (see below). Should I be ashamed if I wanted to look up all the names Zimbabwe has in as many languages as has been possible to collect in one place by Wikipedia users? Please tell me: Should I be ashamed? I stand by my above comment. I think it is extremely called-for. And as for the Wiktionary, personally, I never use it. And I truly doubt anyone would ever look up Zimbabwe in the Wiktionary. One final thing, Angr: You just added the Bân-lâm, Breton, Esperanto, Lojban, and Japanese names for Basque Country to the List of European regions with alternative names for the simple reason that the same names already appeared in the List of country names in various languages, and now you don't have the guts to break a lance for these lists which are being threatened by a wolf in sheep's clothing (namely, a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor). In fact, you seem to be taking his side! I am very disappointed in you. Pasquale 21:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking any sides in this particular discussion; you may have noticed I haven't voted. (Incidentally, neither have you, technically.) I was defending his right to make the AFD, not supporting the AFD itself. Yes, I am still editing these lists because there is a good chance they will be kept. Yes, I have found these lists to be very interesting, and have been quite active in editing them. Nevertheless I can also see that what they cover is really more Wiktionary's jurisdiction than Wikipedia's. If Proto-Celtic language were to be deleted, the information would be completely lost, because there's nowhere else to put it. This information will not be lost if this AFD results in a delete; it will just be transferred to Wiktionary. You say you don't use Wiktionary; that's easily enough remedied: just go to wikt:Main Page and sign up. Finally, making personal attacks against the nominator of an AFD is not going to win people over to want to support your side. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Angr, if I haven't voted, I guess it's because I don't know how to. Where do I send in my ballot? And as for you, I know full well that you have repeatedly contributed to these lists and do find them useful, except that now you suddenly seem to have such little interest in them that you can't bring yourself to take sides. I am sorry, but that's what Pontius Pilate did. And, by the way, I am not making any personal attacks here. I am being very objective. If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I am simply reporting facts. To someone who just came across this AFD, it may not be apparent that its nominator had just stumbled into all these lists and, having found them of no use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, promptly filed a petition to delete them. This is simply an abuse and if you don't recognize it, then I simply don't understand how your mind works or what you're doing to protect the Wikipedia content. Pasquale 22:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To vote, all you have to do is type "keep" or "delete" and a brief summary of your reason, anywhere on this page. I do still have an interest in this information, but I'm willing to entertain the suggestion that it's more appropriate at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Calling Mikka "a vandal camouflaged as a serious Wikipedia contributor" is most certainly a personal attack. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to disagree, Angr. Words, as you know, have objective meanings after all. To me, "vandal" is someone who wishes to destroy something without rhyme or reason, in this particular case, with barely any knowledge or familiarity with the object of his vandalism. You seem to think I am using words as expletives or gratuitous accusations. I am not. I am trying to offer an objective assessment of what's going on here and now. Pasquale 15:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional problems with these lists are their maintainability and duplication of information. Instead of nervous outburst, just compare

and I really have nothing more to say.

I understand that some people spent plenty of time on these and they are dear to thier heart, and I am not offended, but people really need to practice in understanding why other people have other point of view.mikka (t) 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This in probably not the place, but I would say that a much more useful would be List of historical country names, List of historical place names, etc., i.e., list of official names of the toponyms in different historical periods: under differet rule and different local population. this would be really useful for historians, toponynists, etc. In the current list, what is the use for a historian to know how Zimbabwe is called in Finnish language? mikka (t) 19:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maintainability isn't an issue; Wikipedia is just as easy to maintain as Wiktionary. Easier, probably, because there are more people at Wikipedia to keep an eye on things. As for "Ангельшчына (Belarusian)", I don't speak Belarusian, but it looks like several pages at be: don't consider it "ridiculous": be:1922, be:Катэгорыя:Ангельшчына, be:2 студзеня, be:Сьпіс краінаў і тэрыторыяў паводле альфабэту, be:28 лютага. (And even if it were wrong, it would be easy enough for you to correct it.) The only argument you bring up that stands is duplication, and indeed, the Finnish name for Zimbabwe can be found at wikt:Zimbabwe as well, for the benefit of anyone who needs that information. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a chance to look at the page I listed for comparison? The maintainaability 'is most definitely the issue. Also, wiktionary is a good place to talk about etymologies of the names. As for more people, don't forget there is also more articles. I contributed about hundred geographical articles (towns, rivers, mountains, etc.) and edited may not less than a thousand ones, and only recently I stumbled upon these lists. I immediately noticed their usefulness and invisiblity at the same time. mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Belarussian wikipedia is a playground of belarussian russophobic nationalists with archaic ideas to roll back the Russian influence in Belarussian language. I even don't bother to contribute there. "Ангельшчына" is a colloquial term, loosely translated as "land of Englishmen", a standard Slavic construction, and indeed is in informal use, but no way it is the name oif the country. Just try to google "Ангельшчына" (185) vs "Англiя" (44,900). mikka (t) 22:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Zimbabwe part is an polemic fugure in the context that the missing List of historical country names would be of encyclopedic value, rather than of dictionary value, and hence is relevant to wikipedia. mikka (t) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if there are errors or non-NPOV implications in the Belarusian entries on these lists, all you have to do is correct them. The presence of mistakes in a Wikipedia article or list is not a valid reason for deletion. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list is quite useful Also, it helped us a lot in settling a lot of naming disputes in the past. Halibutt 16:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the wiktionary argument, but these wikipedia entries are certainly useful as well. Markussep 17:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: extremely useful. Besides, I'm not sure that lists are very useful on Wiktionary. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that it is useful in here Radomil talk 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comparative analysis of names is, infact, an analysis, not a mere listing.--Panairjdde 17:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely useful, including useful to us in writing Wikipedia. A historical list (as at least one person suggested above)would also be useful, but gets trickier, because it is sometimes difficult to say whether two names from two differeent times refer to the same thing. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Jmabel Danlovejoy 18:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to Neutral - I cannot support Pasquale's behavior on this page. Pontius Pilate, indeed! Danlovejoy 14:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - altogether this list gives the information discussed in a format different from how Wiktionary would provide it. Caesarion 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the only problem of the lists is that they do not contain MORE names and more variants. Juro 20:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe I can see the merits in a move-to-Wiktionary but also believe that the lists, in their present form and presenting much information in one place, provide additional value that would be lost were the information moved to wikt. -- pne (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not at all that happy with the "list culture" we've developed here, but I have to say that lists like this one can be useful indeed. --IJzeren Jan 20:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is interresting. -Pedro 20:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think these lists are quite interesting. Link, Hero of Wind 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Czalex 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful page -- no-one deserves censure, page should not be renominated until standard elapse of time (three months). Xoloz 22:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very useful page. Adam 22:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page is certainly of interest to users of an English-language encyclopaedia. zoney ♣ talk 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wiktionary, per mikkalai. Aecis 00:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Merovingian, Jmabel, Caesarion, IJzeren Jan, and, oh, everyone else. Why on earth would we want to lose this information or make it less readily accessible by moving it to another wiki? Mikkalai and Pasquale, go somewhere to cool off. -EDM 05:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't blame me, EDM. I did not pick this fight. I would never nominate for deletion a page, adding a broad reference to several other similar pages (which someone else has since removed), within MINUTES of becoming aware of their existence, and proposing what? The dispersal of compact information among hundreds, indeed thousands, of wiktionary pages! Imagine, for example, clicking Angrapa -- a river listed in the List of European rivers with alternative names -- in the wiktionary to find that its name is Angrapa (Russian), Węgorapa (Polish)! This is what is being proposed here. If this is not lunacy, I don't know what is. My only fault is that I am actually responsible for alerting the attacker to the existence of all these pages! Pasquale 17:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must be totally out of my old mind. I genuinely fail to understand why it is so horrible to click not in wiktionary, but right here --> Angrapa to learn Belarusian: Анграпа German: Angerapp Polish: Węgorapa Russian: Анграпа, rarely: Анграппа. mikka (t) 02:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know what, Mikkalai's point above has convinced me to change my vote. Wiktionary's format is fine. If I need the country name in other languages, I will go to Wiktionary. It is unfortunate that so many people have voted "keep", when this information should be transfered to Wiktionary. Alexander 007 02:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Less accessible? The same single mouse click on a link, man! Try it: just point your mouse cursor over the word "Poland" (oops!, I mean this one:--> Poland) and press the left mouse button. mikka (t) 09:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very useful. Qertis 06:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but I just want to say that I have had many a conversation with Mikkalai, and have always found him very polite, reasonable and helpful - a Good Wikipedian, in short. While I do think that it is all right to inform people who have worked on an article about its deletion, the way Pasquale did it is completely inappropriate - at least on Avala's talk page (which is how I found out about it) he wrote that the articles have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question. I don't think that people "informed" in such a way will vote fairly, so either their votes should not count, or Mikkalai should be allowed to repeat the vote after less than six months, without such interference. By the way, I'd probably voted keep had this not happen in such a way. Nikola 09:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, Nikola, if I dare ask you the following question. Are you saying that what I wrote is not an exact description of what happened? Did you not like the tone or the substance of it? If it is the tone, I truly do offer my humblest apologies for offending your sensibilities. If it is the substance of it, then, I am sorry, with all due respect, I stand by what I wrote to the letter, because that is EXACTLY what happened. And what good is your opinion, anyway, if it is affected by perception rather than substance? You say you would have probably voted keep but now you're prepared to sacrifice a good Wikipedia page just because of my zealous tone in defending it? Pasquale 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to the above, and I've received the exact same message. Aecis praatpaal 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transfer to Wiktionary and Delete. After reviewing Wiktionary's format some more, I find that it is sufficient. If I want to know the name of Angola in Japanese, I will go to Wiktionary. Alexander 007 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep Important articles. There are no grounds for deletion request.[[User:Avala|Avala|[[User talk:Avala|<font color=#882222>&#9733;</font>]]]] 19:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Holderca1 05:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes[edit]

Delete. Reason: not notable enough and not encyclopedic. Marcus2 23:48, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand with episode summaries. As far as lists of TV episodes go, this one is actually fairly good, and with six seasons and 84 episodes the series is notable; also, as the series has ended its run, the list could easily be expanded without becoming unmanageable.. --keepsleeping say what 00:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show is notable, the list is notable, and the episodes of the show are as notable as the show itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a library of episodes for a television series. Besides, how exactly is it notable? The movie only received $11,000,000. Marcus2 13:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You never see lists like this one in other encyclopedias, so therefore the list is unnotable. And the episodes have not had a major impact on world culture, so therefore the episodes aren't notable. If I were an administrator, I would promptly delete the article, I kid you not. Marcus2 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remind me to vote against you on RFA, then. You just don't speedy an article with meaningful content, even if you strongly disagree with the encyclopedic quality of that content.- A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll second that sentiment, no need to go all extreme on us. Budgiekiller 14:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The Powerpuff Girls? Not notable? 2,230,000 Google hits, translated into a dozen languages, spawned a line of toys and a movie. Episode lists for mainstream television is long accepted on Wikipedia. — mendel ☎ 01:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't every show translated into a dozen languages? Besides, the movie made hardly much money. Marcus2 13:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The movie bombed because it was released quite a while after the peak of the show's popularity; PPG was all but cancelled for nearly a year before the movie was released. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Plenty of precedent, and the series definitely has enough episodes to justify a separate article listing. 23skidoo 06:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "plenty of precedent"? Marcus2 13:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list of episodes for those interested in a fairly major cartoon series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the show is "fairly major", go see how much money the movie made. Marcus2 13:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list, as it can and should be expanded to terse episode summaries. Please, please, please don't make individual articles for each PPG episode, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perfectly notable. As for how much the movie made, check out Gigli (film) which made minus $48,000,000, but still has a rather elegant page which nobody has nominated for deletion (rightly so). Budgiekiller 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, needs to be expanded. PJM 15:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really dislike episode list articles almost as much as I dislike articles for each episode of a series (unless they're quite unique; the PpG ep Meet the Beat-Alls deserves an article), but I'd thought I'd point that Marcus2 really seems to have some sort of bizarre h8 toward every mention of the Girls on Wikipedia. Please observe these relevant sections on my talk page: User talk:Garrett Albright/Archive 1#Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and User talk:Garrett Albright/Archive 1#Craig McCracken. Garrett Albright 17:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we have other lists and the show is notable. Carioca 21:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assume bad faith. Based on Marcus' history with the Power Puff Girls here at Wikipedia, I can't help but think this is another assault omon the subject rather than the article. Marcus, please don't abuse the AfD to make a point. - A Link to the Past (no sig symbol on this dumb laptop)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Cam[edit]

Appears to be musician vanity, in that article was started by User:Lordcam, who has no contributions to any other article. I don't see a page for any of his three names on Allmusic or a listing for his music on Amazon, and most googles appear to be mirrors of this article. As such, Delete, though I'd be open to evidence of notability if anyone else can find some. -Colin Kimbrell 03:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If we delete this page, we may also want to delete the category of Nevisian_musicians, as Lord Cam is the only entry in that category. -Colin Kimbrell 04:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the more reason to keep this article... We need more articles on smaller countries. Guettarda 04:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What we need, though, are quality articles, not unverifiable and self-produced vanity pieces. The ONLY non-cosmetic edits to the article are by "Lord Cam" himself, and he's never so much as touched an article on anything other than his own bio. -Colin Kimbrell 12:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern - but it's mirrored by a concern that we lack articles in this area, and stubs are better than nothing. Lord Cam the calypsonian is verifiable. There is almost certainly an element of vanity in the creation (over a year ago). While it might well have a hard time meeting the burden of "notability" in comparison with American (or even Trinidadian) musicians, so would anything from Nevis. But, tiny as Nevis is, it is a major component of St Kitts & Nevis, with a strong independence movement. You need to look at the person in perspective. Many Caribbean or Pacific heads of state would fail the google test. But that does not make them undeserving of an article. Guettarda 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced that more notable Caribbean or Pacific personalities would fail the Google test (as with my "Dis N Dat" example below). If people feel otherwise, I'll of course agree to abide by the consensus, but at a minimum we need to take out the unverifiable and NPOV allegation that he was "robbed" of the championship. -Colin Kimbrell 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree that "robbed" is POV (hmm, if we were sure he wrote the article, we could say "he claimed he was robbed" - it's a common claim in calypso contests, and probably true at leats some of the time) - Guettarda 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Significant calypsonians are unlikely to be well documented online - they are often not recorded at all. [8] lists him in first place in the semi-finals of Nevis calypso competition in 2001. That makes him nationally significant in St Kitts and Nevis. We should not enhance the systemic bias in Wikipedia by depending on a google test in cases like this. Guettarda 04:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nationally significant, albeit in a small nation. Kappa 04:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Guettarda. from an underrepresented area of the world on Wikipedia. --Kewp (t) 05:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that his position in Guettarda's link 1 does not indicate that was first in the semi-finals of that competition. Rather, it merely indicates that he was eliminated in the semi-final round of that competition, and as such, finished no higher than a tie for ninth. The next year, he finished fifth in this competition...out of six entrants in his class, and those are the only two significant mentions of his name on the entire web, after you screen out wiki mirrors. I'm sure that there are significant calpysonians from Nevis; I just don't see any evidence that Lord Cam is one of them. Compare the results for his name with those of another Nevisian, Dis N Dat (the current Culturama king). Despite the same "small country" handicaps as Lord Cam, there are mentions of him winning past competitions, performing other gigs, and even serving as president of the Nevis Cricket Association. There are two major regional newspapers giving coverage to other local calypsonians, and I just have to think that if Lord Cam were significant, he'd be mentioned there as well. Even if he weren't, I'd still look to give him the benefit of the doubt if anyone other than a user with the same name as him had made substantive additions to the text, but nobody has. -Colin Kimbrell 12:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but as this area is hugely underrepresented on Wikipedia, I don't see the harm of keeping it. As to the main contributer's username, it may be that the contributer is "Lord Cam," but it also could be that the user just signed up for a one time edit and couldn't think of any other name. Either way, though, we can't be sure. Less than 100 articles on Wikipedia mention or are related to Nevis [9], and I think that this article, albeit in a small way, may help improve people's understanding of Nevis' culture. Perhaps in the future when there are thousands of articles about Nevis, this article may prove to be not so noteable but I think we should keep it for the time being.--Kewp (t) 18:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Guettarda. Perodicticus 12:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Guettarda--Vivenot 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, the nation in question is underrepresented on Wikipedia. Yes, that's a bad thing. No, that doesn't mean we should start accepting articles on every little non-notable thing just to counter systemic bias. If this article was on a Canadian, British, American, or French subject it would be deleted easily. Treating underrepresented countries like their subjects are "special" is a bad thing. Lord Bob 19:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify and keep if someone more familiar with calypso can confirm subject's notability. - Sensor 02:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melodious Owl[edit]

No claims which meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Delete. Dvyost 03:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mens Rea (band)[edit]

The article does an excellent job of clarifying how they don't meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That was easy. Devotchka 02:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated in the article: “has yet to release any albums or accomplish anything as a band.” --Allen3 talk 03:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I like their name. I think Mens rea in corpore sano would be even better. --DavidConrad 05:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish every article up for deletion made it the decision this easy... -- Captain Disdain 08:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found the "shockingly null" bit kind of amusing, though. :) Jacqui ★ 14:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McCue[edit]

Not notable, probably vanity. Google search Remy B 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -Andrew 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This google link which searches for michael mccue as well as mike shows some more results, but is it notable enough? Does Wikipedia have an article about the youngest person elected in US history, doesn't appear so. Delete as not quite notable enough. -Andrew 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My attempt to clean it up a bit edit conflicted with this nomination. The information is verifiable, if not notable. No vote. JPD (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the cleanup, the reference definitely helps with determining the notability of the person. As for me, I think it definitely shows the person is not nearly notable enough to warrant an article. Remy B 19:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It wouldn't be notable except at the subject's age, this is very impressive. At least here in America. 24.41.12.37 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Mike McCue (1986? - ) is an elected member of the Finance Committee in Freetown, Massachusetts.

  • No Vote/Comment. I've been watching this since yesterday half-amused, half-surprised, and finding it altogether bizarre. I'm going to refrain from voting, and please by no means think I'd be the least bit offended if it gets deleted; but as far as it being a vanity article, I wouldn't have had to guess at my own year of birth... (it is 1986, tho, if anyone was remotely curious. I haven't fixed it because I don't think it would be right for me to edit the article). Sahasrahla 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of curiosity, how did you know there was an article about yourself? Remy B 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A friend of mine had told me about it, and I've now begun to suspect he was the one who created it. Therefore, I apologize to everyone that this has happened. Please do not misinterpret these actions as me thinking that I'm a noteworthy subject. Sahasrahla 06:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Uhrig[edit]

Hoax; neither IMDb nor Google know him. Delete, including the image. Lupo 13:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and delete the picture as well. Stu 14:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. —BrianSmithson 21:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Seymores Global Perspective Class[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 09:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article on a non-notable class. --GraemeL (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. I'm glad they had a good class, though! - Squibix 12:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I hope they got juice and cookies for being part of the the best ever class. Stu
  • Awww. This is cute, but it's gotta go. D Jacqui ★ 15:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New information[edit]

Howto with totally misleading title

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 with New Trier High School. --Celestianpower háblame 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Trier News[edit]

Clearly a vanity page. Plus, non-notable. Plus, there is no content, only examples of texts they published. Definitly not encyclopedia material. Ritchy 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the 'award-winning for 50 years' claim can be substantiated then I'd suggest Keep - if we're looking at the best high-school newspaper in the USA it's notable. The New Trier High School article seems like such a claim might be plausible. I have however scrapped 98% of the article because it violated copyright. The Land 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. The college newspaper I work for is considered one of the top-5 in the United States, but it's not encyclopedic in and of itself. Same goes for this paper. FCYTravis 01:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per FCYTravis. Thryduulf 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with New Trier High School. No evidence presented that it is one of the top newspapers but worth a mention in the main article. Capitalistroadster 18:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting on today's page. Thryduulf 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-game program[edit]

A self-evident dictdef from the same contributor that gave us the recently-deleted article Cooking Breakfast 2. Very few google hits in a software context (most relate to game (food)), and the only ones I found with this specific usage are all on gamemakergames.com. —Cryptic (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as pointless and unnecessary description of straight-forward English! Anybody with half a brain should be able to figure that "non-game" means anything that's "not a game." -- Foofy 13:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Foofy.--Alhutch 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subtrivial dicdef with no expansion possible. MCB 22:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Article improved mikka (t) 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore, California[edit]

AbstainI googled this town but I found a thriving town that is San Bernardino County, California. However It does not fit your description. This article does sound like it might be real though. (Nominated by Anonymous user User talk:69.140.67.148)

  • Oh, jeez, of course this is a real place! I live near it!!! Keep and close anon AfD nomination immediately. - Lucky 6.9 07:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored AfD, and strong keep. It appears that the nominator is not familiar with the What to do with a possible problem page. - Mailer Diablo 18:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -Andrew 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable real place. This is a ghost town but one with an important history and located near a notable nature reserve. I have added some references to the page to help with verifiablity. Do we have an admin available so we can speedy keep it?
  • Speedy Keep. I don't see a problem with the article being placed on Afd by someone suspecting a hoax, but this clearly is a real place and a well-written article.-gadfium 20:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olle Bergdahl[edit]

A bio on a Swedish computer science student whose claim to notability is that he in 2005 "become a champion in Software Design winning the Nordic Finals in Microsoft´s competition Imagine Cup together with team O2MG". That is presumably not significant enough for any real notability (although I'm sure he may have the potential to become notable in the future), but you are welcome to prove me wrong... Uppland 15:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Center Software[edit]

Does not meet WP:CORP

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patimokkha PRECEPT RELATED TO THE ENVIORNMENT[edit]

plus Essa writting map which has an extra initial paragraph but is otherwise identical. Added RHaworth 13:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of personal essay or original research. Delete or userfy. — JIP | Talk 14:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*userfy They put alot of work into this, but it just is not something that should have an article. Youngamerican 16:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC) delete per Paolo Liberatore, without transwiki. Youngamerican 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the article has been created by an anon: I don't think that userfy can be done in this case (text will go in the userpage of an IP). Maybe transwiki to wikisource is a feasible alternative. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a source text. Uncle G 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. Probably, saving the text is not so important, considering that it has been likely copied and pasted from a file (the spaces at the beginning of lines give this impression) and that the author has not shown up here so far. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy del: nn. mikka (t) 20:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Oakland[edit]

County council worker - merely being a management level council employee does not render someone notable. Average Earthman 18:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google, for what it's worth, gave only one hit for this individual. Average Earthman 18:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 -- no assertion of notability. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A7 JoJan 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by DragonflySixtyseven. Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PHSO[edit]

Created by banned user:Andrew Lin. Banned user (intial and continuing cause: blatantly POV vendetta against soft drinks). My vote: Speedy Delete

Fourohfour 22:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Valid speedy delete due to who created it, listing there. --Kiand 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Metal[edit]

The article is totally pointless, adds no viable description. Furthermore it talks about a supposed genre that only contains ONE band Chelman 22:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nomination Chelman 22:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google hits are to this article and to forum posts. Jkelly 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article admits that the subject is fictional. Trollderella 01:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It - Fictional subjects aren't allowed on wikipedia? oh. plz delete entries for dragons, unicorns, and eskimos immediately.
I think you misinterpreted the word fictional in this context. I also think that eskimos could be rather irked by the fact that you deny their existence. ;) Chelman 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It - The genre exists. Children of Bodom also have a number of pirate metal tunes. The entry needs tweeking, but the fact that you haven't heard of something is not grounds for deletion.
According to this reasoning it would be OK to create Beer metal, Car metal, Sword metal, Love metal, Flower metal, Fire metal, Water metal, Smoke metal and any other NOUN metal related to a theme of a song performed by one artist or another? Chelman 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It - stop the oppression of pirates everywhere. this is another attempt to quash their rich pirate culture!
Why are you voting twice from the same IP? Chelman 17:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power level (dragonball)[edit]

Just a list of data connected with the Dragon Ball manga. Unencyclopedic. I was very tempted to speedy it on the grounds of no context. -- RHaworth 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic random list of data. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Dragonballcruft. — JIP | Talk 13:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. In addition, I believe that after a rather early point in the series, official data on power levels was no longer published, and the rest is fan speculation, i.e. original research. flowersofnight 15:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate Troubles (website)[edit]

New (launched 27 Oct 2005) website initially linked externally from prostate cancer and now written up as an article because an editor disagreed with my removal of that link (and hence WP:POINT). We do not need pages on every website, hence delete. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete web spam. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as creator of the article, not the website). This was created as a consequence of an editorial dispute, but that does not justify my being accused of practicing WP:POINT. If it is web spam, then I ask that the dozens or hundreds of similar (and less content-containing) articles be nominated here in short order. Please do not consider the implied intent but consider the content. If it still is considered to be deletable content, then I'm for accepting that consensus and moving on. Regards, Courtland 17:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I just wrote a couple of words on a complete different topic that involved a reference to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and I thought it was useful to bring that not to my defense or that of the article up for deletion, but to those accused of "web spammery" ... spam'dness is often an eye-of-the-beholder matter. Courtland 18:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • WP:POINT or not, I voted to delete because wikipedia is not a web directory. If you know of hundreds of other articles about three-day-old websites, please nominate them to AfD, and I assure you they will be deleted without controversy. — brighterorange (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time since creation is not a criterion for deletion, though I don't disagree that if I am going to invoke the "there are many like this" argument, then I should back it up with some action or (at least) facts. Thanks for the additional input. Courtland 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable Tedernst 20:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice or malice. Almost nothing three days old without the words "Crown Prince" in front is encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. JFW | T@lk 18:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That covers a lot of ground ... like to put that up as a proposal somewhere? Courtland 18:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC) ps I meant that as tongue in cheek, not as a snide aside Courtland 18:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Edwardian 18:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete InvictaHOG 20:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I lean towards being an inclusionist, I'm not sure if an entry about an undistinguished website is worthy of inclusion. Andrew73 21:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 20:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Basement[edit]

This article does not assert notability; internet forums are not by themselves encyclopedaic; I believe this article was created by members of the forum (so is therefore vanity). Talrias (t | e | c) 01:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it stands. Sort of senseless: how does rap basement deal with rep trading. Marskell 10:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notibility goes into the article and can be verified. The photo caption claims 56,000 users. Is that true? Does that make it notable? Tedernst 18:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the site -- it is one of the most well-known internet hip-hop sites on the internet. Real celebrites have frequented on the site, something that nearly no other website can match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.203.25 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 October 2005
    Could you add this information to the article, providing links to the examples you give? Talrias (t | e | c) 20:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable forum. Article is being vandalized by anons. jni 19:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been fixed to give examples of notibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.226.31 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to comfort[edit]

NN (no google hits for this band in first 60 results of about 800 total google results) and seems to be just a vanity article, corresponding nl wiki article already deleted Qutezuce 04:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Lee[edit]

Song lyrics Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 19:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom -Andrew 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article currently qualifies for WP:CSD. Firstly, it is a copyright violation so is eligible under A8. Secondly, what isn't copyvio is A1 a short, meaningless article with little or no context namely: "This is a song about a very big, strong, black, sexy southern baptist minister Who thinks he's got his program all together, until he meets a lady who lets him know That he ain't got it all together, his name is reverend dr. lee". A Google showed it was a song by Natalie Cole . This song has not charted so its notability is questionable and this article is a clear speedy candidate. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per Capitalistroadster. MCB 22:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Unwin[edit]

Not Encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.164.3.90 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, a contestent on a talent show. —Cryptic (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he did become a minor celebrity in the UK but his fifteen minutes are already more or less up. Unless every minor flash in the pan deserves an article then get rid. Keresaspa 14:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. PJM 17:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 13:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam_Borys[edit]

Delete Garbage. Page about nothing it seems

  • Speedy delete as near-patent nonsense/nn/vanity. Ifnord 04:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nonsense/vanity ERcheck 05:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nn and non-encyclopedic  Ian13  11:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Morris Hall[edit]

non notable dorm, just 76 google hits, that must be a record. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


KeepFirst, Wikipedia can use any article it can get. Second, no one in Morris actually calls it by its full name. Most of us use "Sammy," "Sammy Morris," or just "Morris." In addition, each floor is mentioned far more often than the dorm as a whole. This article is worth keeping. Brokenfrog 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)brokenfrog[reply]

Right, but just because it is important at that specific college doen't mean we need an encyclopedia article on it. However, that is your right to disagree. Please be sure to add your vote in bold before comments though. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I meant is that your figure of 76 hits is inaccurate, as no one would use the full name of the dorm except in official circumstances. People talking about it on their website aren't going to use that exact phrase. Also, there doesn't seem to be anything in the deletion rules about how articles must be about a sufficently popular subject. I don't think that this would qualify as a vanity page. 192.195.234.26 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)brokenfrog[reply]
Ahh, I see what you mean. I never said it was a vanity though. And I don't see how wikipedia can be expected to have articles on every dorm in every college in the world. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as long as it isn't in a name conflict, I really don't think it can do anything but help the wiki be a more rich source of information. I mean, it doesn't use more than a few kilobytes of space, and it contributes useful information. If a new student googles the dorm, he might just be able to find some good information on it here. That makes it worth it to me. 192.195.234.26 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)brokenfrog[reply]

Somehow this AfD page never appeared on the daily list of AfDs, and AfD tag was removed from the article at some point. Relisting for more eyeballs. Pilatus 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Pilatus 15:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable. tregoweth 16:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect]] to some other part of the college. Trollderella 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, notability not established by article --Isolani 17:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know that it's not AfD criterion, but I loved this Gem: "they are known for being the best known of all the floors". If he can prove that the 3rd floor people have notibility comparable to say, Skull and Bones, Scroll and Key, or Sphinx senior society, then maybe we have an article. But otherwise, this dorm seems no more notable than the dorm I live in which happens to also house 6 distinct groups, the fraternities.--CastAStone 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, please, per nominator. Gsd97jks 17:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable about the hall mentioned. Its third floor is far less notable than MIT's Burton House "Fine Fifth." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dorms. Gamaliel 20:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably not encyclopedic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Morris Penthouse[edit]

Article about one floor of a dorm. Non-notable; only of potential interest to students of Taylor University. (The dorm, Samuel Morris Hall, previously appeared on AfD, but no consensus was reached.) tregoweth 08:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm almost tempted to keep it, just to see if we start getting articles about individual rooms. But not quite. Delete, and note that an attempt at redirection was reverted as "vandalism". —Cryptic (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No redirect, no merge, just KILL. --Calton | Talk 08:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Gamaliel 08:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I must note that some alumni and students who live in such places seem to think that the world revolves dormatories. Stu 14:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth. flowersofnight 15:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need articles about non-notable dorms or their floors. The consensus of the dorm's nomination looks like "delete" to me, but it still hasn't been closed. -- Kjkolb 20:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: oops, I didn't notice that it was only relisted today. -- Kjkolb 20:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- DS1953 talk 04:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy-delete. Thryduulf 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Theunick[edit]

Non-notable, little content Modular. (Talk.) 15:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, the article has been tagged speedy and deleted two minutes after it was listed here. The next admnistrator passing here can close the discussion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

School yard wrestling[edit]

Appears to be an advertisement for some sort of company or something, created by User:Aemud, who also uploaded Image:SYW.JPG. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 12:01

  • Just nominating. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 12:01
  • Strong delete, obvious advertising. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP. --GraemeL (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete advert, nn, etc. Youngamerican 13:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legal blurb at the bottom of the page saying, amongst other things, that "This web site is owned and operated by School Yard Wrestling, Inc." indicates that this is an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a free hosting service. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. Delete. Uncle G 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Stu 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad. *drew 03:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secondfunction[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; borderline CSD for being empty (this is how it was originally tagged, but I thought I'd give it a bit more of a chance). Delete. Dvyost 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Speedied as blatant advert Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Shurtugal.com[edit]

advertising for the website ERcheck 02:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Speedied as blatant advert Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by JesseW. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra (band)[edit]

Just nominating. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-31 21:42

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SonicAdvDX[edit]

Well, maybe I'm wading into it here... but this seems a bit out of Encyclopedic range. I'm sure the life of 'SonicAdvDX is important to its creator. But it stops there doesn't it? --Bookandcoffee 02:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. No use at all to Wikipedia. In addition, I fixed up your AfD so that it now appears on October 31's page. Please read the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion (the bit with the yellow, light orange and dark orange colors) next time you submit an AfD. Don't worry about this mishap; I royally screwed it up myself the first time I submitted one. -- RattleMan 02:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is extensive, but the site is not notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put it on the Sonic the Hedgehog Information Treasury if need be, but I say Delete from Wikipedia; doesn't seem notable enough for here. --Shadow Hog 02:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete!! It's bad enough cleaning up articles about non-notable Internet forums — now we have to deal with articles about non-notable forum members?! --keepsleeping say what 03:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO. Also two images on this page Image:SPA Sonic.PNG and Image:Collage.PNG are marked as free for any purpose, but as sprite rips they are copyright Sega and SonicAdvDX does not have the right to release them for any purpose. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supersonic Delete. Anyone whose sole claim to fame is being a forum member does NOT belong on Wikipedia. Really now. flowersofnight 15:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic and non-notable. Carioca 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St._Noels_Hall[edit]

not encyclopedic -Andrew 18:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -Andrew 19:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - does not assert importance or significance (if only A7 could be expanded for animals objects and places) JoJan 19:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • please do not delete. I work here, and it is all true, none is made up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.233.87 (talk • contribs)
  • xxxx verifiable material. Trollderella 20:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Abstain. Just because it's real doesn't mean it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Saberwyn 21:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not all verifiable material is encyclopedic. This article doesn't assert notability and reads more like and advertisement pamphlet than anything else. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE ALL RETARTED AND DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, SCREW YOU ALL! TROLLDERELLA YOU ARE AWESOME! EVERYONE ELSE CAN KISS MY ASS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.228.3 (talk • contribs)

  • Actually, none of this is verifiable. I'll kiss your ass too. Delete. Trollderella 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are thousands of articles on here that do not "assert importance or significance" yet they remain untouched. Who determines what is "important" anyway? This is very important to many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.12.123 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, nn, advertising. -- DS1953 talk 04:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertising? Are you high? Does this mean McDonald's is not allowed to have an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.12.55 (talk • contribs)
  • you moderators are a bunch of homos. Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. feydey 22:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live nearby and have been a few times. They throw great brunches, but this is not a proper Wikipedia article. Jacqui ★ 00:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 1) advertising abuse of wikipedia 2) non-encyclopedia 3) non-notable 4) offensive homophobic insults by article authors Bwithh 03:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity, non notable,unenecylopedia. note personal attacks on voters by authors..Dakota
  • you are an offensive homophobe. Advertising?? how is it advertising? Nowhere does it say, come here now, or even give any contact #'s or anything. You are douchebags. Pull out the buttplugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs)
  • Anal sex is amazing. Bwithh 06:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC) - This comment was left first unsigned, and then falsely attributed to my signature - this was done by Users 209.81.165.130 and 209.81.165.130 Bwithh 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC) entire comment removed by 209.81.166.99, restored by Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • You guys aren't being very helpful. Instead of trying to tear this thing down like the Berlin Wall, why don't you give some advice to the authors so they know what to change? Help them to rebuild it. Like... the... um... Great Wall of China? RGH
Because the article is a pure advert and , also because the authors and their homophobic supporters lack common civility. Bwithh 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find which example of homophobia you were talking about... You're still being vague... Sorry... RGH
I was referring to the early comment "you moderators are a bunch of homos. Get a life. (preceding unsigned comment by 143.105.80.202 (talk • contribs) )", and then later comments in the same vein. I assumed that this was by the article authors, but was not referring to the article itself. I could have been clearer. Bwithh 12:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see how it's an advertisment... Maybe a specific example would be more helpful. Or you could all sit around feeling all proud and mighty that you shot down an admittedly crappy article. I hope you all come down with a severe case of rectal prolapse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.166.99 (talk • contribs)
  • Yeah! I second that. And I hope you can't just push it back in, either!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.254.91 (talk • contribs) , who is also responsible for all comments signed user:RGH in this debate. Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. Fails the proposed inclusion guides for WP:CORP. As an aside, someone who knows about the place may have helped with the article's improvement, if the first comment here by the article's contributors hadn't been "YOU ARE ALL RETARTED AND DONT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, SCREW YOU ALL!". Saberwyn 06:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all seriousness, you really don't have a sense of humor. This was only put up for fun and to see if it would last. It was obvious from the beginning that it wasn't going anywhere. I don't even know why it's still up. In other news, Saberwyn clearly indicated that it shows potential to be a 'real' article, which goes against all the other's proclamations that it is a cut and dry removal piece. Clearly the standards need to be worked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.166.99 (talk • contribs)
    • May. The key word is may. I originally did not believe personally that there was potential in this article. Mind you, my judgement is hampered in this case because I live on a different continent. I was only stating the possibility that someone who knew the place better that I did (and wasn't an original contributor to the article) could possibly have looked at the piece and given the rest of us informed advice. Jacqui has given us that informed decision, and I see no evidence here to counter her claims.
If there was any desire by the original contributors to make this into a decent article (which there apparently wasn't according to the comment above) that effort has been completely blown out of the water by the behaviour of the article's contributors and their allies during this AfD. Mind you, some of the accusations by the regualar users are almost as bad.
I've made my decision. I'm no longer abstaining, now voting for delete as a serious failure of WP:CORP, and also as a breach of the spirit of the Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point policy, as attested to above by anon user 209.81.166.99. Saberwyn 10:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Well, Well. Looks like we gots ourselves a bunch of retarted moderators here. Seen um before I have. Yup, they go around getting a sick high off deleting enjoyable articles. Yeah, them some nasty buggers. They pretend to be high n' mighty while striking down the weak and unedumicated. Bastards. Nope, you just can't get rid of them. They hang around like flies on dead bodies. We can only pray that someday, maybe, they will understand harmless humor, and find something better to do with their time. But for now, we all must put up with their stank.
  • Comment Very cute...
  • Does anyone know anything about calculus? I'm having a hard time with one of my homework problems and I was hoping someone could help me out. The problem reads: We are planning to put a space shuttle in gepsynchronous orbit at a distance above the earth`s equator of 22, 300 miles. It`s objective is a point in space 240,000 miles from the earth`s center. We know that the best time to leave earth`s orbit is a little more than 3/4 of an orbit past the point,C, which is the closest point in the shuttle`s orbit to the object, M, However, we need a bit more accuracy that that. A) How long from the time when it is closest to the objective, M, should it fire its rockets so as to be on a direct course toward the objective? B) How fast will the shuttle be traveling toward the objective just before firing the rockets to leave earth orbit. The picture given has earth inside of this larger circle. The point C is directly below E on the circle and the point S, is directle to the left and down, like at 280 degrees on the circle. I know that: you have to use the radius of the earth, divide by 24 to get how fast the space shuttle travels in one hour, and that the circle is the orbit of the shuttle. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks for taking time out to help.

-Josh

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY DELETED -- Francs2000 18:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Horn[edit]

Attack page, possibly also patent nonsense. Already put it up for speedy, but I don't like to have A6 pages up any longer than necessary. Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suudsu[edit]

A term from this week's Strong Bad e-mail. Not quite nonsense as the original speedy tag had it, but certainly not notable either. Delete. Dvyost 06:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 14:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete homestarcruft and neologisms. This is both. flowersofnight 15:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, definitely. Wikipedia Is Not HRWiki. There, the article about the thing can - and shall - long shine in infamy, but it definitely isn't notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. And the article here is ugly as hell too, unlike HRWiki's. --Wwwwolf 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism and strongbadcruft. The artcle at the HRWiki is much better anyway. - Sensor 03:25, 1

November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swooge[edit]

It's a dictionary definition of a neologism. - Squibix 12:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously. - Squibix 12:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stu 14:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef --MacRusgail 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard this word before and have updated the definition. It's urbane slang, though, so I'm not sure if this is the place for it. --Kortina 11:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil language/temp[edit]

This was a working draft that should have been created in a sandbox or user space. Tamil language already exists, and I see no need for a merge. Dalbury 15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. The existing article seems to have the language covered pretty well. Youngamerican 16:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --CastAStone 17:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TeamXbox[edit]

Article about the goings-on in the forums of an Xbox365 fansite. In July it was tagged as a speedy and deleted four times, but the entry had virtually no content at that time. --anetode¹ ² ³ 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Criminology[edit]

it's a narrative, not an encyclopedia article, and there's no content to salvage. Calliopejen 22:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terran militia[edit]

Anti-zombie patrol in Illinois. Non-notable, but can't quite figure out what article of CSD applies (it's a group, not a bio), so it's here instead. Dvyost 02:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, possible newbie test. Kappa 04:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Captain Disdain 08:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, plus nonsense Tedernst 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, counters systemic bias against zombie hunting. Delete, pretty freakin' non-notable. Lord Bob 19:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we sure this isn't a reference to some work of fiction that the author forgot to identify as such? An obvious delete if it isn't, of course. — Haeleth Talk 19:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This may be from a fictional work, but without more context information it is completely unverifiable. --Allen3 talk 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to support the zombie conspriacy. Klonimus 06:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or BJAODN. Nonsense. Carioca 20:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Mr. Mickel[edit]

Transparent hoax; these guys are a long way from their five Pulitzers.

  • Delete. Dvyost 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Andrew 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revoke Pulitzer's. Remy B 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax JoJan 19:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 207.193.126.124 put up a whole collection such as this, and was previously blocked. --Bookandcoffee 20:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Star Fox[edit]

Google brings up nothing. I've never heard of this myself. Also, it lists characters, especially Krystal, that weren't even thought up of during the time frame it lists. Thunderbrand 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thunderbrand 05:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Here's the search for anyone interested: [10]. Robert T | @ | C 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB doesn't list anything like this in Dan Aykroyd's credits. End of story.Vulturell 05:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any reference to "Jungle Film Productions Ltd", either. -- Captain Disdain 08:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but please, please do BJAODN it too). Definitely smells like a hoax on so many levels. And on top of all of this Googlery and IMDBry, I can't find it on edonkey either, so it's obviously a hoax. =) --Wwwwolf 19:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. 23skidoo 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Crazed Mugs[edit]

Non-notable band. —Wayward Talk 15:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaming Hotel[edit]

Advertisement. BrainyBroad 07:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blatant advertisement, no less. Let's delete it and smile! -- Captain Disdain 07:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Advertising, "created on the 22nd of October 2005" shows that this is way too recent to have any justification to be in an encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. -- DS1953 talk 04:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Intelligent Design. Robert T | @ | C 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The science of Intelligent Design[edit]

Seems to be pointless as this info is on Intelligent Design, not sure. Splintercellguy 03:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect I tried to redirect twice already and explained the reasons on the author's talk page [11], but they reverted, I asked again and got no response. Regardless I think this is a pretty clear redirect. - cohesion★talk 04:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps they wanted to emphasize the POV of ID as science? Jacqui ★ 15:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Intelligent Design.--Isotope23 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect oxymoron title as above. — RJH 17:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the fork. Joshuaschroeder 01:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or even delete. It's a POV fork. FeloniousMonk 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (it seems unlikely that someone will type this in while searching for ID) or Merge if there is anything here which isn't already covered in the main article. Guettarda 13:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 02:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To-do list[edit]

Seems more approriate for Wikitionary. Not really an important article for Wikipedia. TDS (talk • contribs) 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not approriate for Wikipedia - just a useless article in general. TDS (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is just a dictionary definition. Unless there's a rich and varied history of to-do lists out there that I'm unfamiliar with, I can't really see anyone getting a full article out of the topic, either. -- Captain Disdain 07:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important part of project management, also featured on many wikipedians' user pages. Kappa 12:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it is an important part of management and it is featured on many Wikipedians' User Pages (including myself), a to-do list simply does not require an encyclopedic entry. There is just not no need for it. TDS (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Research turns up a fair amount of source material on the subject of to-do lists. Keep. Uncle G 20:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just seems like such a simple straight forward thing that does not need an entry on Wikipedia. TDS (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of things are simple and straightforward. They warrant encyclopaedia articles just as this subject does. The argument that both you and Captain Disdain put forward above is that this is a stub with no possibility for expansion. As I said, research shows that that's not the case. Uncle G 21:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, looking at the revised article now, I see that I was clearly wrong. Bad judgement on my part; that was some kind of a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry about that. Changing my vote to keep. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable tool in management. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of ALL human knowledge, even if it is straight-forward. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, well, I think it is not supposed to be a repository of ALL human knowledge, actually. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Someone could conceivably research this in management books, etc. and write a bit more. —BrianSmithson 21:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. No longer a dictdef but could use some more expansion. Verifiable common time management practice. Capitalistroadster 22:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable personal habit. Klonimus 06:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Tasks for VFD:

  1. Close all discussions as consensus to keep.
  2. Delete VFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and expand. Not just a dicdef if done right. -- DS1953 talk 04:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep; or alternatively, if deleted, remove To-Do List from Wikipedia commmunity portal for consistency.
    Endomion 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to list of racial slurs. Neutralitytalk 20:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Towel head[edit]

delete slangdef --Trovatore 04:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Harlan[edit]

Unverifiable, probably a hoax. Also see Elks on the Up and Up. Delete. Dvyost 02:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why would someone bother to make such a lame hoax? Devotchka 02:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. (And Devotchka, that's a good question. Ask one of those people who constantly engage in lame hoaxes like this...) -- Captain Disdain 08:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. BTW shouldn't this be a CSD.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 08:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. I'm all for speedying stuff that needs to be speedied, but if you're not sure that something is a hoax or non-notable, I think it's definitely better to go to AfD, because if the topic is notable, that way there's a far better chance of someone coming up with the important reference or whatnot. I tag a lot of stuff for speedy deletion under A7, but if I'd run across this one, I'd have gone to AfD myself. -- Captain Disdain 09:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, CSD G1 explicitly says that hoaxes can't be speedied. So AfD it is... --Dvyost 19:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely hoax; non verifiable. Hall Monitor 19:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted on the book's AFD page, an author whose bio says he died in 1952 unequivocally did not write a book about anything in Nunavut, which didn't even exist until 1999. Delete hoax. Bearcat 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, as per Bearcat. Luigizanasi 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per hoax arguments. --maclean25 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster air and Callie group[edit]

An article about an airline which does not currently exist, nor can any information be found in news sources. The airline industry is a volatile one, and it is quite likely that this airline will never exist. Likewise the Callie group (parent company which is launching the airline) article cannot be verified by news sources, web searches or local phone directory searches. Not notable. Both articles only links in are from the other article. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks/wangi 15:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Holderca1 04:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Sproston (DD-577)[edit]

Delete as per nomination. Lack of content - perhaps the person in reference should make the page for themselves? LichYoshi 05:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I see what it's become, please forgive my over-zealousness. -LichYoshi 07:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't worry! We were glad to fix it. Joaquin Murietta 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you do not delete the information entered for the USS Sproston. My Father Lawrence H. Ernest and the remaining shipmates of the USS Sproston recently had a reunion in Charleston, SC. They have a wealth of information concerning this ship and all related mater to enter an outstanding article about this ship. I felt that the little bit of information I placed there would let others know that a more detailed article would be forthcoming and looked better than no information at all. However now that it has that UGLY tag for deletion on it I would much rather you delete it. I have contacted the parties that can provide us with a much more appropriate entry. Please forgive my enthusiasm and sub par work in this matter. Please delete the information I entered ASAP or remove the deletion notice. Thank you, Lawrence Ernest.

  • Strong Keep. The USS Sproston DD 577 was Fletcher class destroyer. I edit this article into a stub and ask that you look at it tomorrow and consider withdrawing the nomination. Joaquin Murietta 06:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. I turned this into a reasonable stub (sorry, Joaquin, I didn't see your note), and now it just needs some real work. Bikeable 06:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bikeable, we were editing it at the same time. I expanded it -- do you think we should remove the stub? All it needs now is to wikify all the DANFS text and to switch the photo of the Fletcher for a public domain DANFS photo of the Sproston. Oh, yeah, we need a disambiguation page. Joaquin Murietta 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the disambig page for the two ships named USS Sproston. ♠DanMS 04:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your gracious comments. 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Stu 14:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nothing NN about a Navy destroyer. Article is excellent now (even if it wasn't, would still get my vote for speedy keep). - Sensor 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep big ships Klonimus 06:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as obviously notable. Carioca 20:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page intentionally left blank.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VIMUN[edit]

Not notable student event

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual list of American artists[edit]

Although I appreciate what the author was trying to do with this article it is not suitable for Wikipedia for two reasons (1)WP:NOT a collection of media files and loading the page chokes a broadband connection (2)I don't think that images from modern artists could be used under fair use in an article of this nature creating a copyright headache. Delete.--nixie 07:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thelb4 08:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, showing the paintings helps describe the artists. Kappa 12:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Good idea, but not what wikipedia is all about... Stu 14:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not sure that this is a good direction for WP to go in, although it is a really interesting page, but AFD is not the place to decide it. Take it to the Village Pump for more comment. Trollderella 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, each image needs copyright verified but article itself is really cool Tedernst 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it took forever to load with a broadband connection and will only get worse as it becomes more complete. The paintings should be in the artists' articles. We have U.S. artists and U.S. painters categories that can be used for navigation.
    • Yep, the users can probably guess what kind of paintings they do from their names. Kappa 22:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft that would be better served by a category. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um categories cannot even be annotated, let alone illustrated. Kappa 22:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyright headache. Jkelly 00:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not for lack of merit. I like the concept and think it could be easily applied to less broad concepts, viz. to illustrate German Expressionism in the context of an article on the whole Expressionist movement. That would be extremely useful in illustrating an artist's or genre's work. (Call it like having a set of nice color plates in a paper encyclopedia.) As it is, though, a grand article about a Visual List of American Artists is too broad and unencyclopedic to be useful, and, as such, should be deleted. - Sensor 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete pending discussion at the village pump, this really need to be broken up, the exntant page takes much too long to load. I would vote keep if this were borken up.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Visual mental imagery, Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery[edit]

This may be a copyright vio (though its claim of permission prevents a speedy), but certainly looks like original research. Can anybody more qualified sort through this one? I'm suggesting delete. Dvyost 06:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm the original Speedy lister... It does fall under Speedy Criteria > Articles > #8:
  • An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
    • The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits
"The following entry is excerpted and adapted from Kosslyn, Ganis, and Thompson" and posted by user:KosslynLab so 1) only 1 of the 3 editors is not enough to declare its got permission. (so its copyvio) 2) its vanity 3) its OR 4) user spammed with several other articles that are vitually identical content: Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery. Nuke them ALL and while we're at it block User:KosslynLab who hasnt been back since posting (aka no major loss)  ALKIVAR™ 06:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right that it's probably a copyvio, which is why I'm listing here; but as long as the author makes an "assertion" of permission, which (s)he has, we can't really speedy it yet. Don't worry; leaving it here for a few days with a tag won't hurt anybody. Let me go round up those others you mention... --Dvyost 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Chunks of it may be salvageable, citing the Nature Neuroscience article as a proper source, but as it stands, it just won't work. Anville 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Tedernst 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the copyright release can be verified, Delete - 70.146.91.110 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - This was me. I keep losing my login. - Dalbury 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to fix this now, but it really doesn't seem right to move the votes from one article to look like votes for them all; the above users only voted on one or two of these articles, not all four. What's the matter with keeping these as separate discussions? Also, Auditory imagery had text before Kosslynlab touched it (see page history)--that text should be preserved regardless of copyvio findings. Keep Auditory Imagery but remove copyvio text; Delete the other three. --Dvyost 00:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but delete the final few paragraphs which are (as pointed out above) some combination of original research and vanity. The topic of auditory imagery should make an excellent wiki article eventually, so please don't delete: wiki really ought to have an entry here, but let's focus on making the entry a good one. Robinh 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't think this qualifies as original research since the source article is a review article, which ought to be a summation of the state of scientific knowledge on the matter at the time of writing, and therefore encyclopedic. That being said, I have real doubts that Macmillan has relinquished their copyright on the article so that it could appear in four chunks on wikipedia. The journal prints nothing but neuroscience reviews, if this permission is the publisher's policy, it's quite conceivable that every article of every issue would appear on wikipedia. I wonder if Kosslyn (Dept of Psych, Harvard U.) is aware of, and endorses, the actions of Kosslynlab? Pete.Hurd 06:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 13:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waka waka[edit]

A thoroughly useless entry, I'm sad to say; it just doesn't deserve its own article. I suppose it could be merged to Pac-Man (that wakka-wakka-wakka sound is highly distinctive), though. -- Captain Disdain 07:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 07:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Nlu 07:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. Thelb4 08:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Johnson[edit]

This page makes no assertion of notability whatsoever - this guy's only claim to fame is that he had a website, which, in this day and age, is hardly unusual enough to put this guy in the Wikipedia. ♠PMC♠ 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable bio ERcheck 05:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. -- Captain Disdain 08:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vanity, but not speedy: a claim to fame is an assertion of notability. (It is the assertion that matters, not the assertion's validity. Note we have articles on people who run successful websites.) I agree there should be a faster way to get rid of these obvious deletes, but A7 doesn't cover it, IMO. — brighterorange (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dalbury 16:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy NN, vanity. PJM 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not speediable. The guy's "claim" is that he gets "loads of hits". Still, NN, vanity. Xoloz 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 19:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense vanity garbage. - Sensor 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 02:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WGFP[edit]

Advert, non-notable. Delete. Dvyost 06:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the advertisement. -- Captain Disdain 07:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a class D AM radio station, which are usually not notable (still only proposed). -- Kjkolb 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not for the reasons cited. It's an advert. - Sensor 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real radio. Klonimus 06:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally I'd say keep for radio stations, but this one can be deleted and nothing would be lost. If someone improves the article to a useful stub then I'll reconsider. Vegaswikian 06:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yearyism[edit]

NN. It is hard to come by a term with no Google hits -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense Bwithh 05:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete non-verifiable crap.Vulturell 05:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax, but hoaxes are not a speedy. Patent nonsense refers to things which have absolutely no semantic meaning whatsoever, things like random strings of characters, and articles where it is impossible to make head or foot of what it is trying to say. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE YEARYISTS WOOT! -- Captain Disdain 08:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. Thelb4 08:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete high school political party articles, especially highly unenecyclopedic ones. (It may not be a hoax, though there are certainly some untrue claims in there.) Jacqui ★ 15:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN cruft. - Sensor 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yotoshi[edit]

This seems to be a page on a non-notable search engine (along with page Bitoogle, which seems like a vanity page or even a link to a commercial service which does not really provide any encyclopedic value. Move to delete Master Of Ninja 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Nonnotable.`mikka (t) 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom -Andrew 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 01:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z310[edit]

delete slangdef --Trovatore 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zagat’s[edit]

SNL is certainly notable, as are many, many of the sketches. But a sketch that was only done twice? In one of the show's worst seasons? That isn't in any other way notable? 128.231.88.4 You can call me Al 18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. Cecil Turtle gets an article, and he only appeared in three cartoons, so as a recurring comedy bit in a larger body of work, I see this as (weakly) similar. —BrianSmithson 21:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Saturday Night Live. —Cleared as filed. 00:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zagat Survey per You can call me Al. --Metropolitan90 02:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Merge with other short-lived recurring SNL sketches. I don't think this fits with Zagat's Survey (although a mention of it in that article wouldn't be out of place). I'm currently working on getting information together on most of the recurring sketches that appeared on SNL. I would like to put them all into categories so there aren't all these stubs hanging around. But it's a process, so please bear with me. I would like any input I can get on what the categories should be. I have two in mind so far "Characters That Appeared On Weekend Update" and "Short-Lived Saturday Night Live Sketches" (which would include anything that recurred four or fewer times). Suggestions? Leadpipevigilante 04:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zagat Survey per You can call me Al. Youngamerican 14:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Leadpipevigilante's page, whatever s/he calls it in the end when it's made. After that is done, a redirect to Zagat's might be fine -- but with a disambig line o' top to this content. Jacqui ★ 00:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please retain the article on the SNL sketch comedy, Zagat. Perhaps, the default link can be to the article on Zagat's, the restaurant guide, with a disambiguation link to the SNL sketch article. SNL has fans from many countries and cultures, who do not always get references to American pop culture. Such articles in the Wikipedia are very useful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_31&oldid=1081093536"