Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 5 October 7 >

Purge server cache

October 6[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 04:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bvllets[edit]

Delete - appears to be vanity (all edits before this one are from one anon editor) - Bvllets gets about about 52 real Google hits, many of which are not on point. -- BD2412 talk 00:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

User's fourth edit Karmafist 04:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity.--Alhutch 06:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom: vanity.--Qirex 07:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. Marcus22 14:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if every google hit were on target, his claims to fame are a non-notable blog and a non-notable record label. That equals a nn-bio in my book.--Isotope23 15:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 18:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Alf melmac 08:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 04:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolsmartphone[edit]

non-notable company -- probaple attempt at linkspam. Previously tagged as a speedy. Does not qualify as a speedy IMO, but do Delete with no mercy. DES (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Orr[edit]

Tagged as a speedy, which IMO it was not (not nonsense, and makes a claim of notability). But the claim is not made in a verifiable way, the only link is to the site of the person written about, and there is no good indication of notability. A google search turns up several people named "David Orr" but none seem to be this person. Delete unless verifiable evidence of natability is provided. DES (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (From Author), I do have proof of these awards, I just need to scan the actual certificates into my computer to put onto either my site/ wikipedia. And yes a google search comes up with plenty of people named David Orr, because there is more than one person with my name. In fact, doing a google search on a lot of these topics is probably not the best way to determine if an article is valid or not, because google only displays websites if they are added to its server to crawl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMaestro (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 October 2005
    • We don't need certificate scans, just add mention of the names, locations, and dates of the awards. That will let anyone interested verify this info. DES (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we wouldn't be reduced to a google search if you provided verifiable citations of what you have done that is notable, and when and where you did it. DES (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of the article states "yes a google search comes up with plenty of people named David Orr, because there is more than one person with my name." This causes concern because we have a policy guideline Wikipedia:Vanity page which states "Most often, vanity edits are edits about the editors themselves, their close relatives or their personal associates. While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner or employee of or an investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc. Articles on very little-known subjects are often of debatable value for our readers, so if you write a new article on one it is particularly important to express the facts in a neutral way and as much as possible to cite sources that are credible, neutral, and independent.
  • As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is (whether or not defined by Wikipedia:Importance)." Importance is determined against guidelines outlined in WP:music for musicians and the article does not establish notability against these guidelines. However, you are welcome to put them on your user page. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. I vote to Userfy if that is the author's intentions until such time as notability can be established according to WP:music. Capitalistroadster 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha I know a guy names David Orr who is most definately not this guy. Delete With 5 Day Period per the nomination, do not speedy because the guy at least makes an assertion of notability. CastAStone 01:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My "favorite" David Orr is the Cook County Clerk (in Chicago). He's probably just as notable as this guy. We need a disambig page!
  • Scanned certificates or not, this not worth an article. Classic vanity article. Delete. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. I guess that's an assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an article about an aspiring musician. It mentions some awards and certificates --- none of which are particularly prestigious. I wish Mr. Orr the best of luck, but he doesn't qualify as "notable" yet. jmd
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May well be back one day when he is notable. Marcus22 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Delete. Statewide High School level awards don't confer notability.--Isotope23 15:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy userfy regardless of certificate scans. Hall Monitor 20:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stu 00:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phrealon[edit]

Phrealon appears to be non-notable software. It only gets 103 original Google results, some of which are just lists. -- Kjkolb 09:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough participation here. Relisting to encourage more. -Splashtalk 00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Linux distros are notable, IMHO. Is there a policy that states otherwise? (distrocruft?)Borisblue 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, imo. It's not nonsense or anything, and it's not hurting anyone or taking up space for no reason.--Qirex 07:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my concern. I think its important that we be evenhanded with respect to types of software. I know that this isn't exactly "advertisment" in the sense that an entry here will increase revenue or anything. I am worried that keeping every entry on an open source project, but deleting most entries on companies or commercial products constitutes bias in the encyclopedia. When I read the article, I thought "would I accept this if it was a purely commercial enterprise" and I said no. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am GNU/Linux fanatic, but then not all distros are notable enough to find a mention in Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the policy on this? I find it hard to believe that we can make space for Pokemon moves and not for an OS. Borisblue 15:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've already got an excellent article on this OS, at Linux. This is just another packaging of that OS and a bunch of utilities on a bootable CD image. --Carnildo 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-distro. If someone can assert (and prove) notability on the level of Dyne:bolic I'd be willing to change my vote.--Isotope23 15:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Distrowatch lists approximately 350 distros, and this isn't one of them. Doesn't appear to be distinguished in any way from the hundreds of bootable-cd distros already out there. --Carnildo`
  • Delete, I don't think it's a very popular or notable distribution per Distrowatch and Carnildo. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please just because it is not popular does not mean people might want to know about it and we are supposed to be the sum of all knowledge so why should we erase this Yuckfoo 03:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for its own article. Can be merged with some other article perhaps and be made into a redirect, but not enough to stand on its own. Qaz (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per carnildo, inter alia. Dottore So 05:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 04:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evalubase Research[edit]

Delete, non-notable company, most of the article is cut-and-pasted from a company press release. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough participation here. Relisting to encourage more. -Splashtalk 00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instore[edit]

Advert Secretlondon 21:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • D as ad for NN trade rag. Fawcett5 14:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough participation here. Relisting to encourage more. -Splashtalk 00:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is established. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly is verifiable. Needs to be NPOV'd but that's not reason for deletion. Grace Note 03:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trade magazines have sufficient readership to claim notability because of it. Perhaps a slight rewording is needed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per Grace Note.
er that's my unsigned above...--Isotope23 18:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 04:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic wightman[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio, but I think by fairly common practise, we take a media mention as at least an assertion. So AfD gets to make the decision instead. -Splashtalk 00:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original article didn't even mention the media coverage -- i found that on google. But several copies of the same two sentance mention was all I could find, after i sorted out mentions of other people of the same name. Delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • DESiegel - I changed your formatting to what I believe you intended. --CastAStone 01:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is surprisingly verifiable. But, one minor mention for having a disease is not much of a claim to fame. Friday (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Surviving a mosquito bite is stretching notability a bit! Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity. CLW 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but nice human interest story. Survive an attack by Mike Tyson as well and maybe I will change my mind. Qaz (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 04:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Brides[edit]

Tagged as a speedy, which it is not iMO. But it does look like promotion (although i edited out the more glaring ad text, and munged the links) and it is probably non-notable. But if it really is the first such buisness in all of Australia (and if this can be verified, it just might be notable. Delete unless verifiable evidence of notability added to the article. DES (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that it does not meet CSD though. --CastAStone 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is this chain a market leader down under? Qaz (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 05:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, A8 copyvio. -Splashtalk 01:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mochipet[edit]

Tagged as nn-bio and, since it is about a real person, it could be. But it says he has releases, so I think it ought to come here and get the WP:MUSIC treatment, just to be safe. -Splashtalk 01:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • copyvio ([1]), but otherwise I would vote to keep, since I've heard of him. Has an allmusic discography, at least. — brighterorange (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitspace[edit]

Tagged for speedy, but we lack any means so to delete it. -Splashtalk 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alexa rank over 3,000,000 [2], google can only find two pages that link to the site [3], and the comment "another foo startup company" does inspire hope for notability. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alexa and Google. A webhost needs significantly more than a mere 2 incoming links. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no free ads here please. Qaz (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Object pool (done by Tenbaset, thanks). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object_cesspool[edit]

Appears to be a nelogism coined by the author. Could be merged into Object pool by the same author. Tenbaset 01:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge → object pool, per nom. --Mysidia (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → object pool, per nom. Note that I've already written a poor addition to object pool which covers object cesspools. Even if this article stays, object pool needs to link back to it, and describe why it's interesting. --195.173.15.12 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge → object pool - Some things are better in other articles instead of on their own. This is one of those things. Qaz (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think anyone trying to merge the content into Object pool should not use the phrase "Object cesspool" because it is a neologism (Please see Talk:Object cesspool for my rationale.) and that's why I nominated it for VFD. I've also done such a (rough) merge Tenbaset 08:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed: see Talk:Anti-pattern#Object_cesspool -- it appears that this article may have been created essentially by original research - citing sources would have been preferable, and the word object cesspool seems to be a neologism/protologism, unknown to major writings on the subject of patterns/anti-patterns, at least.. --Mysidia (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism.--Mpeisenbr 15:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear case of neologism. Rd232 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 14:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Japan[edit]

Not notable. CambridgeBayWeather 01:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vince F. Postell, PhD[edit]

non-notable Nv8200p (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepJoaquin Murietta 05:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete average professor - no especial notability. Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per CSD: A7 - No assertion of notability. Also possible hoax/and or attack. Placing the speedy tag.--inksT 08:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax, but NN either. The second result on Google is the Wikipedia page.--inksT 08:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Inks, I strongly disagree that this is speediable. "I am a professor of X at Y" is an ipso facto assertion of notability, in my view, because the prominence of the individual is thereafter easy to verify. I don't think the average professor deserves an article, but he does deserve an AfD to investigate how notable he is. Xoloz 09:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how "I am a professor of X at Y" is any more an assertion of notability than "I am a lathe operator at XYZ Engineering". It's just a statement of occupation and employer. Yes, it does increase verifiability, but there is nothing inherently notable about being a professor. MCB 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree. Thanks to the current culture of universities, almost every active (US, anyway) professor is publishing something in some journal, and it is easy as pie to search that out. In such cases, when there is a very high likelihood of an easy determination of notability at AfD, no claim with any degree of specificity and reasonableness needs to be speedied. Put simply, no single admin is God-like enough to know absolutely whether a prof. is notable; these are the sorts of cases which are fundamental to the design of AfD, in my view. More than one voice is a necessity. To directly address your analogy, a professor is more potentially notable than a lathe operator because it is a virtual certainty he has published some academic work, and it is likely he has published some book. Xoloz 13:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But simple publication of books or journals is no indicator of notability. How is a book notable if it sells 4 copies, or a paper notable if published in an obscure journal? Perhaps if they said "has publised 400 papers, 30 of them in Nature, and 50 in Science" - that I would consider to be an assertion of notability. To me, simply being a professor, without further qualifying information is no assertion of notability, which is why I tagged it for speedy delete.--inksT 04:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For me, anyway, publishing a book is an assertion of notability. It doesn't mean you are notable, certainly, but it gives us enough evidence to evaluate quickly whether you are. Say the stub for the recently deceased M. Scott Peck started as, "He was a PhD who wrote a book." This is not something we need to speedy. Send to AfD, where someone will find out what book and (if they are a constructive Wikipedian, will update the stub. For Postell, he's nn, because nobody has found anything he's written, but suppose he had written The Existence of God Proved... you just won't know whether there is a major work lurking in somebody's background until several sets of eyes examine the thing. Xoloz 12:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, includes opinion and non-encyclopedic info. Wouldn't be even a stub if stripped of those. PS. If this was rewritten/kept it needs to be moved to Vince F. Postell (without the title, per naming conventions). - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable71.28.243.246 18:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having a PhD and being employed by a university does not make someone notable. Average Earthman 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something more notable about this person shows up. Qaz (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Dottore So 05:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Xoloz 09:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn; see comment above. MCB 00:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to mirror his cv. --Vsion 04:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Nathoo[edit]

Nonsense - This person does not exist Nv8200p (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Søfelde[edit]

Non notable page that has seemed to slip through. - RoyBoy 800 02:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - RoyBoy 800 02:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. So tagged. Friday (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Piano Lessons[edit]

Advertisment for nn website. Delete. Owen× ☎ 02:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urbano[edit]

Can't find any pertinent his on Google with the keywords "Urbano", "Cosa nuova" and "New York". Verify or delete. Pilatus 02:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with no sources and per nom. feydey 15:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Andrew pmk. Qaz (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax. Dottore So 06:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Wikibofh 14:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pianopoli[edit]

Pianopoli exists and is a village in Calabria. The rest is patent, unverified nonsense. Delete this to have a clean slate when someone gets arount to write a real entry on the place. Pilatus 02:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AFD is not the right tag for this. I think you need a request for expansion. Borisblue 02:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for cleanup and expansion as per Borisbleu. --CastAStone 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per everyone else and everyone else bound to follow. [edit] 05:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as real place with real communities of interest. I have created a small stub on this town and it is now listed in the Italian stubs area. I have also added a couple of references. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Capitalistroadster's new stub, which is now listed in the Italian geography stubs area, where it should be! Grutness...wha? 07:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little too small for my liking, but the stub is verifiable and true, and I don't see why we can't have a verifiable article on an Italian village. Keep. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. utcursch | talk 11:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also perhaps there should be a project for foreign cities as I find some pretty bad ones in the Wikify category. Some have to be completely rewritten as they are incoherent. I try to clean up or rewrite them as best as I can, as I think they should be included. However, Google is usually useless for small foreign cities, especially in the Middle East and India, and I don't have any books or knowledge about them. -- Kjkolb 02:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found an example, though this is better than some. -- Kjkolb 10:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please as we always do when it is about a village or town or city Yuckfoo 02:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid stub. But really, I think instead of nominating this type of article, just fix it, add a stub tag, and if someone wants to write a real entry, they will be pointed to the stub already. MCB 00:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sawmill_Camp[edit]

Vanity page. Speedy. Gary 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. --Qirex 08:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad, no real info.--Woggly 08:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 15:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising.-- Qaz (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- As far as being advertising, its not really. Please take a look at these related AFDs. All these AFDs should be merged.--L1AM 10:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability of the camp is not clear from reading the article alone. In fact, it is not clear what this camp is, who it belongs to ("Philmont" is not linked or mentioned in the article"), where it is (it is traditional to name a state and country, not latitude and longitude!)Instead we have such ad-copy as: "a great place to get a hot shower and a great program", "magnificent views", "a small but friendly staff", "a great advisor's coffee in the evenings". This is non-informative and non encyclopedic. If you think the article is worth keeping, you should take the time to write a clear lead, and cleanup, because no one who has NOT gone to this camp will be able to do so. --Woggly 07:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC) If and only if rewritten, I'd support a merge to Philmont Scout Ranch --Woggly 07:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Moye[edit]

Delete - This appears to be some sort of vanity page, which isn't even that flattering. 168.122.206.118 02:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't seem like a vanity page per say, looks more like the computer generated lists over at Googlism. Funny site, that.--Qirex 07:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No entry at IMDB (the "James Moye" there appears to be another actor), fails the test for inclusion. (Even if there were an entry for Moye there, this article would desperately need a cleanup.) -- llywrch 18:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy is a stage actor is the reason he is not in IMDB. Getting cast in that number of successful and famous shows warrants inclusion methinks. Qaz (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After I looked on IMDB & cast my vote, I wondered that very thing -- however, I would expect that the original contributor would mention that he was a stage actor. And yet, if we accept that as a given, how do we then determine whether a theatre actor is worth including? Are these plays in New York, London, Chicago -- or some place like Cheyenne, Wyoming or Bend, Oregon? Has he performed in any companies that comply with the guidelines of Actors' Equity? (And if so, where can one find a database for all of these companies & plays -- there are none at the AE website.) Or are all of these plays he performed in community or high school plays? I'm looking for information here so I could be comfortable in accepting his entry in Wikipedia. I didn't find that information in the article, which is the reason for my vote. -- llywrch 23:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Moye has added his name to a list of utterly non-notable actors, proving that vanity pages are vanity pages and that they will continue to be DELETED - Dottore So 06:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article was tagged cleanup on May 16. The only subsequent edits were an edit in August that put the article in its current wretched state and finally the addition of the AFD tag. Quale 23:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic; the lack of reference to the names, places, dates, etc. of the productions makes it unverifiable. MCB 00:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manlow[edit]

Unverified material. anon user:82.210.117.215 raises reasonable questions of accuracy at Talk:Manlow. Claims are 'suspicious' unless supporting evidence can be found. e.g. widely believed among theorists [apparently historians]... no actual evidence... I have trouble accepting reputatable scholars would widely believe something without any actual evidence. Possible hoax. (Google ineffective in such cases.) Propose delete unless can be verified. RJFJR 03:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable. Jkelly 05:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, likely hoax. A search on Google with the string "Manlow Holland" returns a Wikipedia hit, & lots about Barry Manlow & Eric Manlow in Holland, but nothing about this family, royal or otherwise. The original contributor made two other edits, neither of which inspire confidence in this material. Were I 99% sure that this was a hoax I'd label this as a Speedy delete, but I'm only 85-90% sure. -- llywrch 18:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked on the last page. The butler did it! Qaz (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Absolutely a hoax. There's no such thing. Check out the index from Jonathon Israel's absolutely masterful survey and you'll see it passes from Mandeville to Mansfeld. Dottore So 06:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aecis 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For more on the above: this is a list of all Dutch noble families. Aecis 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

313v3[edit]

Forumcruft, no content beyond saying that it's a "spin-off messageboard from the UK regional board on GameFAQs." Delete. --Aquillion 03:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Quale 07:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into GameFAQs if at all significant. Otherwise delete. How many of these spin-offs are there? - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 09:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Doesn't establish notability. Forumcruft are some of the easiest articles to create. Let's at least establish they're notable. Bobo192 17:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Kross 06:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Masterhatch 10:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 consesnsus. -R. fiend 14:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puyi Church[edit]

Tagged, untagged, retagged... and ultimately got lost in a fD-limbo. no vote. Nabla 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Bubamara 18:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to be a demonination, not a building. CalJW 14:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified and notability is established. -- Kjkolb 02:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, religious denomination, already survived a vfd. Kappa 15:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, [Puyi] are a people of varied beliefs. The Puyi Church as it were is merely the Christian missions among them. --OGRastamon 16:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ancient afd nomination was again orphaned improperly, this time by Alhutch (talk · contribs) [4]. Relisting now. Will be irate if it needs to be done again. —Cryptic (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawang churches. Uncle G 14:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not establish notability. Denni☯ 01:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreeing with above. Dottore So 06:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the precedent given by Uncle G. Also, I'm not sure about process when the same V/AfD (and this same discussion has survived long enough actively to be both) spans July-October. Xoloz 09:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa PMLF 23:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Had it not been for the previous listing cited by Uncle G, this would have been a tough call. There's just the barest mention on Google of this (in fact, the only real citation I found was the same one cited at [5] by User:Kappa). Yet, that's enough to pass the verifiability test (if only by the skin of its teeth). But, as several above have pointed out, this has already survived the process once. Unless somebody can demonstrate what has changed between the first AfD and this one, I say there's no reason to rehash the subject. Not every decision is perfect, but let it go and move on to something else. There is no doubt the article needs improving, however. --RoySmith 00:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manchu churches[edit]

Tagged, untagged, retagged... and ultimately got lost in a fD-limbo. no vote. Nabla 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. The author has created several articles on churches with no established notability and most containing no substantive information other than geographic location and the fact that the church is growing. Bubamara 10:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Bubamara. I could find only one relevant hit and it was just a list. -- Kjkolb 02:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bubamara. Dlyons493 03:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bubamara. Shauri 03:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Manchu. Kappa 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Paul 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ancient afd nomination was again orphaned improperly, this time by Alhutch (talk · contribs) [6]. Relisting now. Will be irate if it needs to be done again. —Cryptic (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawang churches. Uncle G 14:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under category A1. I really want to find a way to keep this article, but as it currently reads, it's barely more than a dictionary definition, with maybe half a sentence of information worth merging elswhere. Nothing links to it. A sure SD if any existed. -- llywrch 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 06:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the precedent given by Uncle G. Also, I'm not sure about process when the same V/AfD (and this same discussion has survived long enough actively to be both) spans July-October. Xoloz 09:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup and expand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. What churches? When? Which religion? Woefully incomplete, and I doubt that it can be successfully expanded. The Manchu are now almost entirely assimilated into Chinese society, and before that their religion was primarily their native Jurchen Shamanism (shaman is just about the only Manchu word adopted into English, BTW) and Lamaistic Buddhism inherited from the Mongols. Neither one would use what we would call a church, as far as I know. --Fire Star 16:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poorly written article needs improvement, not deleting. Has already survived one AfD [7]. See my comments under Piyu Church above for more on this subject --RoySmith 00:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 14:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdomsource[edit]

Blatant, blatant ad. Wording seems to be tweaked just enough from their web page that it's not a speedy delete copyvio. Did I mention it was a blatant ad? No? Bunchofgrapes 03:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 06:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more empowerment. Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as badvertising Qaz (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant revisions have been made to remove advertising content and replace with factual descriptions of company and its vision & products. Please reconsider deletion. User:Pdubuc 21:01, 10 October 2005 (PST)
    • Nice job on the wikiformatting; I appreciate the work you've put into the page. I'm sorry to say that it still smells very much like an ad, though, so my nominator's Delete opinion is unchanged. Most of the page still sounds like a press release or corporate website, not an encylopedia article. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Bunchofgrapes, I have taken another pass at the Wikipedia entry for the company, WisdomSource. Like Wikipedia, it is a story that needs to be told and Wikipedia is, I believe, the right place to tell their story. What ideas do you have to make it better? Let me know & I will implement them; and then we should be good to go. Thanks! - Paul Dubuc, MA, PMP, 604 313 4126. [User:Pdubuc|Pdubuc]] 04:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Most of the article should be eliminated or replaced with simple, straightforward facts about the products you sell and what they do. Again, simple, straightforward facts. The prose currently on the page is a searingly painful-to-read marriage of corporate-speak and new-age mumbo-jumbo. Honstly, even if you made the changes, I'm not sure that a company of 15 people (including resellers) and $1M revenues is notable enough for an article. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to tell this story. I do appreciate the terrific effort you have put into this.Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Gamaliel 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Dirt (album) -R. fiend 14:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Down in a Hole[edit]

This single by Alice in Chains isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, article is POV Chozan 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 04:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton and regina's time difference[edit]

Unencyclopedic, random information. The full text of the page is currently "On the 5th of every month, Edmonton, AB changes its time to +6 Central time, meaning at 9:46PM Regina time, it will be 3AM in edmonton." Bunchofgrapes 03:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article's contents are implausible. Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 05:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under new CSD A9, being this article. the wub "?!" 12:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no CSD A9, however I would vote to delete this because it is obviously false. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andrew, I am sorry to tell you that your sense of humor is missing and presumed dead :-) Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was uncertain. Redirecting this to Left Behind, but deleting content first, as I'm almost sure it's directly off the back of the book. -R. fiend 15:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. The merge to Left Behind suggested on the page seems perfectly reasonable, and there's no reason not to redirect afterwards. —Cryptic (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? Why merge? We already have an article on Nicolae Carpathia. Borisblue 04:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this should be a disambiguation page. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Left Behind Qaz (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boris is right. Adequate article already exists, so this should just be deleted. In order to form consensus, however, consider this a vote to merge. Dottore So 06:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 22:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NAMGLA[edit]

This page has been recreated, HOWEVER, it is, to the best of my knowledge, different from the version that has came before. One particular reason is that I have copyedited the page to the best of my abilities. However, I realized the lack of notability, as well as the inability to get any larger. Therefore, I have decided to renominate this page for deletion.

Here is the earlier debate for deletion.

Now, let's see if this should be deleted. —”MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and delete —”MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page shoud be merged with nambla . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.190.148 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination initially overwrote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAMGLA; I've split it out. It was also orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Joaquin Murietta 05:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rank of 3,216,460. Jkelly 05:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothingness. --rob 06:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is not a hoax perhaps it can be merged with the NAMBLA article since it is obviously a spin-off of sorts. In other words I think it gains notability by association with NAMBLA which sadly has plenty of notability but NAMGLA does not have enough to have its own article. Qaz (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (phirefenix) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.83.228 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not a hoax, the message board appears to exist, but it's just one in millions. Perhaps it can work as an external link in NAMBLA, but without an actual organization attached, this is yet another messageboard. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with NAMBLA article (make it a Sub-Chapter therin) delete —” (talk)
  • Delete. There isn't an AfD notice on the article. --Fire Star 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge if there is any semblance of reality to this. — mæstro t/c4 14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteEven it is authentic, it's still just a college class exercise71.28.243.246 19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes, that is what is claimed now. That is because an editor did a Google search, saw that the first result which came up was the aforementioned fictional group, and failed to see that the second result was http://www.namgla.com, a message board for the group which matches the description given by the article. Even if we speculate that Harvard went to the trouble of actually registering the namgla.com domain and setting up a message board there just to add verisimilitude to a fictional group referenced in a Constitutional Law class, what are we to make of the fact that the exam took place in 1998 and the message board was active as of October 2005? The much more obvious explanation is that the same name occurred to both a law professor trying to invoke the reputation of NAMBLA without referencing the real NAMBLA and to someone wanting a name for an advocacy group that was to girls what NAMBLA is to boys. It's not like it's an especially creative name. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 or userfy. As they're both delete votes, and the user has had ample time to move this to his own space, I'm deleting it. -R. fiend 15:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omar amanat[edit]

  • Delete nn resume cruft, possibly also legal issues. Dunno who submitted this for VfD, but oddly enough it might have been the author of the article! From his note, it seems that he wants to regiser as a user and create a user page to tell his tale of woe, but he wants register anonymously and apparently concluded that starting a VfD would help him do that! Sheesh. I don't see what his problem is with the usual registration--- he doesn't want to get a confirming email that his boss might see?---CH (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. Also, the first paragraph is a copyright violation. I came here through the article's link. This nomination is pretty old, but apparently it isn't closed. -- Kjkolb 05:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF is going on here? Does this guy want us to make him a user page or somthing? Delete, in any case, per above. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this user wants this to be on his user page. Userfy. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, I wish I knew for sure what this guy wanted. Userfy and hope that is it methinks. Qaz (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless copyvio is shown. Sounds like a notable person, based on business history and the legal controversies. (I don't think the subject is the author, based both on the tenor of the article and the unlikelihood of a multimillionaire CEO etc. "getting in trouble" with his company, so userfy is not really an option.) MCB 00:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 15:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted FuelWagon 19:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete -I started this article recently, and it was immediately entered under a VFD with "no consensus". I've since moved all the interesting content to Methodological naturalism and put it into narative format. This page is now redundant and any article that links to this article would be much better off linking ot Methodological naturalism. FuelWagon 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, Fine, poster knows best. -- Ec5618 19:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, these issues are best dealt with in more specific articles. --Ian Pitchford 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nomination, and good job on the restructuring. Alai 06:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 15:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orkest Zonder Naam[edit]

All Dutch lyrics to a song by a Dutch orchestra. Non-notable, not worth translating. Areia 11:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Physchim62 11:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyvio lyrics. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Text isn't even about orchestra. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mgm Qaz (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. This orchestra is definitely notable. It was the orchestra of the catholic broadcasting corporation KRO during the pillarization of Dutch society. As such, this orchestra was one of the top musical groups prior to the arrival of rock 'n roll in this country. The songs of this orchestra never made it to the charts though, for the simple reason that charts didn't exist over here back then. Their 1952 song Naar de speeltuin is a Dutch evergreen, which sold 25,000 copies. For the time, that was an immense amount. In fact, I think I'll replace the current content of the article with some of this information. Aecis 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rewritten stub by Aecis seems notable and capable of expansion. Quale 23:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Orchestra without name' is fine by me. Alf melmac 12:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 15:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey's Fallacy[edit]

trivial, dubious name --Trovatore 04:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, we've all seen "proofs" like this, but I never heard this name for them, and a cursory Google search doesn't find it. Maybe there's somewhere it can be merged/redirected, otherwise please delete. --Trovatore 04:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this topic is already covered at Division_by_zero#Fallacies_based_on_division_by_zero. Delete unless evidence is provided that someone named Alexey was first to discover this proof, in which case merge and redirect to Division by zero. --Metropolitan90 05:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you take the last step of his "proof" and divide by "n", you get a very-well-known proof that 2 = 1. --Carnildo 21:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be in Division_by_zero. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and redirect — seems to be covered in Division by zero. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge/redirect per Metropolitan90 linas 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect per Metropolitan90. Paul August ☎ 04:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not the common name for this fallacy, which is already explained in Division by zero, as Metropolitan90 says. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if you must, but I thought it was an interesting enough topic.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No O'Clock in the morning[edit]

Utterly non-notable (who's David Aaron (myst_hunter)? Google doesn't know). Delete. Dvyost 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism verging on nonsense. Cnwb 04:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 05:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete hoax --Johntex\talk 08:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Secret Squirrels[edit]

  • Club vanity, and their greatest claim to notability is having their Wikipedia article deleted. Non-notable/vanity in pure form. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was already speedy deleted. I also appear to be in a revert war over at squirrel concerning whether the secret squirrels are notable enough to belong in that article. --Aranae 04:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN group of friends. They even state that their articles usually get deleted. Cnwb 05:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. They are wrong here, the articles are not being deleted because they're by anonymous authors, they're deleted because their subjects are not notable. — JIP | Talk 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Secret Speedy delete unverifiable nonsense. Let's help these squirrels remain secret. --Johntex\talk 08:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, they admit to being deleted before and they're unverifiable by reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Secret Squirrel. This is very similar to the name of the re-hashed Secret Squirrel cartoons in the 1990s. Grutness...wha? 12:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"". It's notable to about 1k people in the Washington, DC area. It doesn't have anything to do with the Secret Squirrel cartoons. I moved this over from Squirrel, because someone created it there, and it certainly doesn't belong there. I added the "articles are deleted", because it kept getting yanked without listed reason, which, well, isn't exactly a model of politeness. Looking through the Deletion Policy and What Wikipedia is Not, this seems a legitimate article. It *doesn't* get deleted, I'll be glad to expand it beyond it's current near-stub state. That said, please *don't* redirect it to Secret Squirrel, as the topics are entirely unrelated.Talldean 14:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really relevant whether or not there's a connection between what this article is currently about and Secret Squirrel. The main thing is that the current article is deletable, and it is viable that someone searching for the renamed "Super Secret Squirrel" cartoon would try searching with an -s on the end of the third word. that makes this title a reasonable redirect. Grutness...wha? 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cartoon is 'Secret Squirrel'. If they added a 'Super' to the beginning and pluralized it, that'd make more sense. Thus, redirect probably isn't the best idea. Talldean 14:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The 1990s remake was called "Super Secret Squirrel" - close enough that someone could get one letter wrong. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please. (How's that for polite?). Marcus22 14:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, at least it's polite; I can't really ask for much more on this one. Talldean 14:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability.--Isotope23 16:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I am new, the actual measurable notariety of this social group is effectively irrelevant to whether or not this article meets the grounds for deletion. The idea is whether or not this article actually contributes to wikipedia as an encyclopedic article. Ideally the test for this with respect to vanity articles is whether or not someone who is not a member or owner of the group would write an article about the group (in this case, since we are referring to a social group.) I have done some basic research and have found independent references to them, specifically to their so-called "dj takeovers of clubs". Furthermore, it can be argued that documentation of the social state of an existing counter-culture, regardless level of localization, is necessary. Taking into consideration their "dj takeovers" at locations such as Nation in Washington, D.C. and Singapore Bistro (also in Washington, D.C.) it is evident that they play a role in the "rave" counter-culture of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Nation is a nightclub of nationwide notariety, on par with Twilo of New York, NY and Bed of Miami, FL. We are fast approaching the effective end of the rave counter-culture in this portion of the United States. This makes it ever more imperative that we document as much as possible of this important portion of American history. This particular social group claims to be the evolution of a group that once contributed greatly to this counter-culture. Lastly, it's necessary to define the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Currently the Washington, D.C. metro area is one of the largest metropolitan areas, encompassing a vast portion of northern Virginia, USA and Baltimore, MD, USA. Given this evidence, I see no reason to deem this article non-encylopedic, on the condition that it is expanded beyond the current stub-like state. Metagrapher 20:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, completely unsourced. Quale 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense. Gamaliel 05:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Fish Called Martin[edit]

This article is nonsense. If anyone thinks it has any meaning, please clue me in.--Rogerd 04:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 04:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulteama[edit]

Unless something has changed recently, a group of friends who play Halo on the XBOX is definitely not encyclopedic. [edit] 04:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is getting ridiculous. We need a speedy category for video game clubs and video game characters. Jkelly 05:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN group of friends. Cnwb 05:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per nominator --Johntex\talk 09:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of the votes above were deleted by User:128.61.66.138. In a separate edit, User:128.189.155.63 added the following comment to the page, which was then blank except for the nomination: Are you joking! I read this entry and now im OBSESSED with Ulteama. Infact im doing my school research project on this god like group of people. I have reverted to Utcursch's edit. Chick Bowen 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now for my vote: Delete, unencyclopedic. Chick Bowen 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think you all realise who these people are. They are not just "any" group of friends. They are actually THE BEST halo players in the world. Like the champions. If I read correctly in a PC gamer magazine, they have never been defeated. (comment left by User:24.64.223.203.)
  • Comment. Please note that this page has been repeatedly vandalized, most recently by 128.61.66.138 and 155.33.70.154. Chick Bowen 03:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (18 keep, 12 delete, 2 merge (discounting IP vote)). Robert 17:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Zurich High School (Lake Zurich, Illinois)[edit]

Nothing distinguishes this school between thousands upon thousands of other cookie cutter schools. [edit] 04:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as long as it is verifiable. Jkelly 05:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Joaquin Murietta 05:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and please stop listing these as there is no consensus to delete school articles. Silensor 05:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor, BTW, is there a consensus to keep. Denni☯ 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a concensus, established over the past 10 months, to "not delete" schools simply because they are schools. I will concede there is no "concensus to keep" if you concede that there is a "concensus to 'not delete'".--Nicodemus75 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep that up, and you're going to get tangled up in your own words and fall on your ass. Oops, I see you already have. Fact is, there is just plain no consensus. Schools do not get deleted not because the keep votes win, but because lack of consensus always defaults to keep. And what is consensus? A two-thirds vote one way or the other. The break just happens to go your way. It has nothing to do with how a simple majority vote count falls out. Denni☯ 00:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it wasn't for the one line of text and infobox, it would be a CSD:A3. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Instead of a cry to "stop putting these on AfD", how about "stop creating millions of entries about NN schools!".--inksT 08:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a consensus to keep them either, otherwise the issue wouldn't be so controversial. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with inks completely - being a school is not sufficient to be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry --Johntex\talk 09:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia isn't a yellow pages. Once you remove the address and zip code, there's hardly any coherent text left. It appears to have a history, so if someone could put together a few coherent sentences and maybe say whether it was the first x in the area, I could be pursuaded to change my vote. - Mgm|(talk) 09:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of school articles. In a few years there will almost certainly be tens of thousands. They are hardly ever deleted so nominating the odd one is pointless. Please get over this issue and move on to a more productive project. CalJW 10:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? A claim of victory based on sheer weight of numbers, eh? Sounds like Star Wars. We just need a Schools Articles Death Star, and someone to fly an X-Wing into it.--inksT 10:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please vote the article based on its merits not on it being a school. - Mgm|(talk) 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An article which is primarily about a school is inherently meritorious.--Nicodemus75 17:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the keepers trying to force numbers here. Being unencyclopedic and basicly contentless is a valid reason for deletion. Why don't you spend a little more time on expanding school articles rather than creating (or supporting the creation) of hordes of ugly stubs? If the articles contained more info a lot less people would tend to delete them. - Mgm|(talk) 22:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • School articles are nominated on the basis of being schools and have to be defended on that basis - if this was about a village or a university it would be left in peace. This stub might not be too beautiful, but it has useful and encyclopedic content and should not require defense. Creating stubs is the fastest way to improve wikipedia's coverage, although I might be making stubs about places in Chad if people didn't keep attacking schools. Kappa 23:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a school is neither a village or a university. And in any case, most articles on villages and universities contain more info than this pathetic little stub. Perhaps instead of supporting these no-name schools, or creating stubs on villages in Chad, you can put your money where your mouth is and add some much-needed content to soem of these school articles you've been so adamant in saving. Denni☯ 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't seem to be the best use of my time, since any content I added would be in danger of deletion. Kappa 02:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cop-out, Kappa. Almost all articles face some danger, even if vanishingly small, of deletion. School articles tend, as you have stated several times, to be kept, even in their usually-pathetic state. However, I am not the only deletionist who would vote to keep a school article if it included info that demonstrated notability. You are actually decreasing the likelihood of an article being deleted by adding to it; is that not what you want? Or are you simply voting 'keep' while letting others do the work of ensuring keepability? Denni☯ 23:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point is that deleting "non-notable" schools destroys wikipedia's coverage of education. Most schools aren't any more notable than average, there isn't anything I can do to the article to change that. Kappa 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I could sure run with that one if I wanted, Kappa. But I'll just leave you to ponder how an article listing a school's location, the name of the principal, the number of students, and the school colors could possibly have anything whatsoever to do with education. This depressing description could be of virtually any of the school articles currently on board. Wikipedia is covering nothing except a school census. And thank you for noting that most schools aren't any more notable than average. That being the case, why are we keeping them? We don't keep "average" anything else. Denni☯ 05:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High Schools. — RJH 15:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools. --rob 16:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete and to reduce the number of totally pointless school articles.--Isotope23 16:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lake Zurich, Illinois. Yet another tiny little stub that would be better off being merged. Which I thought we'd done before. Don't waste people's time making them click for tiny snippets of info buried among repeat information - a summary table of the schools in the main page is more useful. And don't witter on about expanding or 'organic growth' unless you're going to do it yourself without resorting to mission statements and statements of the bleeding obvious. Average Earthman 22:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mission statements are valuable, per WP:NPOV. Kappa 23:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've yet to see a school mission statement that is remotely valuable. They all state the blatantly obvious. Average Earthman 08:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This schools mission statement is no exception - "The mission of Lake Zurich High School is to provide a safe and supportive environment in which all students actively participate in the learning process and are challenged to reach their full potential. The High School Learning Community fosters character development while creating well-rounded, lifelong learners who will become productive citizens through a partnership that engages the entire local community." See what I mean? Ever seen a school mission statement which reads "We aim give a patchy education to the few remotely smart kids while keeping the rest of these wretches off the streets for a few hours, and we don't want anything to do with their horrible parents"? Average Earthman 08:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well this mission statement is bland and tries to cover all the bases, but it doesn't say it aims to fulfill the manpower needs of the nation, or to develop in students a respect for authority, so that make it different from some. Kappa 11:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete public schools, even those with astroturf. Gazpacho 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another nn school --JAranda | yeah 00:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Astroturf won't get you into the Guinness Book of records. Or, one hopes, into Wikipedia. Denni☯ 01:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand into something interesting. Instead of arguing whether all schools should be included or excluded, we should have a policy that helps editors make a school article worthy of inclusion. What makes this school different from others? Famous graduates? Championship football team? Anyone get shot there? There's something unique about every school. -- Mwalcoff 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go on then, expand it. Seriously. I'm fed up of people saying to keep and expand a stub and not doing so. Whenever I want a stub kept, I try to find a way to expand it - if you can't expand it, it should be merged until any expansion is needed. Average Earthman 08:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please it is about an interesting school and the article is neutral an verifiable so we should not erase it Yuckfoo 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you say that this is an interesting school, you must know information that can expand it. If you don't, how can you say it's an interesting school, rather than just the same as all other schools? If you just want to keep all school articles, please say so, but please don't claim this one is particularly interesting if you don't have any evidence to add. Average Earthman 08:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, high schools are notable and there is active work underway on this article. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.School articles are nominated on the basis of being schools and have to be defended on that basis. No. They are nominated on the basis that they are Not Notable, Not Encyclopedic, or otherwise Not Wikiworthy. Getting into a debate about inherent notability is ridiculous - you should only vote keep if that particular school is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. At the moment, everyone is just voting keep because "it's a school, and we always keep schools". Just look at the reasoning - There's something unique about every school. Come on, there's something unique about everything. Every bus stop, every side street, every person, every house. If that argument were brought out on any other AfD people would be Rolling on the Floor, Laughing. "Keep the article about King Edward Pedestrian Crossing, Namibia, there is something unique about every pedestrian crossing, we should expand it into something interesting". What is this amorphous quality about schools that causes otherwise sensible Wikipedians to throw all logic and reason out the window?--inksT 03:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an easy question to answer - its because they are either working in one or still going to one :). Not saying everyone who goes to school votes to keep them, but it can cloud one's judgement if they are not careful. Also, before you vote, see some wisdom from denni. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did we mention that we keep colleges, villages, metro stations, Simpsons episodes, Slate journalists, warships, pokemons, albums, pro baseball players and more, all without requiring any more notability than being what they are? If we accept that an established school can be non-notable, we can say goodbye to the ideal of a comprehensive, useful, NPOV wikipedia. Kappa 03:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've used this argument before, and the response is the same - no one votes to "Keep" an article on a destroyer because "Destroyers are inherently notable". For things other than schools, we can actually have a rational debate regarding notability or other criteria without suffering a Charge of the Schoolwatch Brigade.--inksT 03:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um no-one even nominates destroyers, because destroyers are considered inherently notable. Kappa 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've missed the point. If and when a destroyer, or magazine, or pokemon is nominated for AfD, we can have a rational discussion about notability. All I ask is that we move away from the "X is inherently notable" form of argument, towards a "These are criteria that define notability" form of argument.--inksT 04:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If and when a destroyer or pokemon is nominated, it gets kept because it's just as notable as all the other destroyers and pokemons. There's no point discussing the general notability of destroyers and pokemons every time. Kappa 04:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • You've missed the point (again). Arguments that invoke "inherent notability" are a bad idea, because no two schools, or pokemon, or destroyers are created equal. Absol is not notable compared to Pikachu, the Malaysian pocket destroyer "Harimau" is not notable compared to the WW2 destroyer USS Laffey, which is the only surviving ship of it's class, and Lake Zurich High School is not notable compared to Columbine. Can we please, please, please discuss each article on its own merits.--inksT 04:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Absol is not notable compared to Pikachu, but it's notable enough, so it gets an article and happily we don't have to delve into the comparative notability of pokemons and theoretically we have time to do better things. Kappa 04:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please tell me you're not ignoring the point just for the fun of it. I would like nothing better than to delve into the comparative notability of pokemon, if it means an end to the plague of "inherently notable because it's part of a class that has one or two notable elements" arguments.--inksT 04:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a student, BTW. I think if you have an institution where thousands of people spend half of their weekday waking hours, which costs millions of dollars of taxpayer money to construct and operate, which serves as a focal point of a community -- I'd say that's noteworthy. At least as noteworthy as a Class A minor-league baseball team or an obscure manga comic. -- Mwalcoff 03:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a ridiculous conclusion. Schools are inheritly not notable - they are just a pile a bricks. Ask yourself, why are the other articles kept and what makes them notable? The answer is it's connection to people plus uniqueness. People almost never go back to a school they go to - and why do they go back when they actually do? Its because of the teachers, not the pile of cement that is the "school". That's why these articles are doomed to be substub articles with a very low quality for eternity - there is no connection to people here, no notability, just the same thing as the last school article. There is no point in having 99% these around, thus the term "schoolcruft" - they are just there to take up server space. Sorry to those who are offended but it's true - and even if you did expand the article it would be no different then any other article about 99% of the schools here. There are some school articles that are worth having - but almost nothing I've seen come here fits that. What we should do is make an article for the school district and give a blurb for the school there - as, quite frankly, these articles are never going to be nothing more than a blurb and table anyway. While we're at it, if we are going to have an article on every school we should have an article on every person too - because even one teacher at a school is generally more notable then the school itself, and it seems silly to keep schools and not teachers. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 03:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • School articles aren't about buildings, they are about organizations which shape everyone's lives. They might all look indentical to you, but you are obviously neither interested in the school itself, nor schools in general, so you aren't really the target audience. If you think schools should be covered in school district articles, you should be voting merge, not delete. Kappa 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well now - first off I disagree that they are "organizations which shape everyone's lives" - they teach - that is their function. That's why if there is an article around here its about a sports program or something of the school - because the schools inheritly all do the same thing. The organization does not do the life-shaping - its the people at the organization. The organization recieves a set sum of money to teach/etc. either from a government or a set of people - thus the inherit non-notability. Also, I am interested in a school article and would like to see a good one but this is not it, neither are most of the other ones I've voted on. As for merge, well, no one else is voting merge here and as merge defaults to keep I'd rather see it deleted in that case (that and there's nothing to merge to). Right now 99% of the school articles here are a small collection of trivia, which does not seem to belong here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My local supermarket shapes my life too as it provides me with food and things to buy, but I'd rather have an article on the company behind the shop than the shop itself. Just like an article on education rather than the school where it's done. I don't think this particular stub increases Wikipedias coverage at all. It barely contains any info. I challenge anyone who thinks schools are inherently notable to enter the Wikipedia:Article rescue contest and put your money where your mouth is. Saying you shouldn't expand them because your additions are in danger of being deleted is ridiculous, the more encyclopedic info an entry contains the likelier it is to be kept. Caulfield Grammar School anyone? - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are tens of thousands of schools in the USA. Should we also list every church, 7-11 store, and gas station? (Unsigned vote by User:67.161.42.199)--inksT 04:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another clearly unnotable school. Dottore So 06:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lake Zurich, Illinois per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough WPians (and I am not one of them) are convinced schools are inherently notable, and they have reasonable arguments supporting their position. Let them have their articles. Xoloz 09:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And those reasonable arguments would be? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See #Keep, but briefly, as I understand the arguments, schools are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their formative years. They are generally fixed in location, and often have long histories. They are likely each to attract substantial communities of interest to WP. I don't firmly agree with these points, but I see some value. My high school, for example, was founded in 1970, with an average class size of 1,000 people. It serves a city of 70,000, each citizen likely to know it. It is known across the entire US state, and well-known by adjacent towns, such that I estimate at least 350,000 people know of it and have reason to search for it. In my state, my school is (or was) average (ie. I looked up class size and campus size when enrolled there, and it was in the middle.) 350,000 potential searchers is good enough, arguably. Xoloz 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do firmly believe, however, that these arguments absolutely distinguish schools from boxes, gyms, bars, factories, and all the other general categories to which the are compared by some here. Generally, most students have at least some interest in their school (if only because they are stuck there in young life when they would rather be outside), and I know most parents have an interest in their children's school. The aggregate community attachment to these places, in my experience, far exceeds community concern for other "buildings," as schools are called here in dimunition by some. Xoloz 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sadly, sir, you are quite wrong. Some parents have an interest in their child's school. Most parents do not, though they do have an interest in their child's performance in their school. I speak from many years' experience as a former teacher, attempting to get parental involvement in my school. Good luck. And the higher the grade level, the less likelihood of getting that involvement. Parents are more interested in the local Safeway than in the local school. Laugh if you will, but parents spend more time there, they spend more money there, and they make more decisions regarding groceries than regarding school. It is less likely the Safeway flier will go directly in the recycle bin than the school newsletter. Sad but true. Denni☯ 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Schools are worthy of having a place on Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 12:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. All school nominations are bad-faith. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there are quite a few good-faith school nominations, made by people who haven't come across the debate before and don't realise that the nomination will waste many people's time without achieving anything useful. 16:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Nominations are also made by people who continue to believe that the subject of an article must be properly encyclopedic, and seeing a school article with name, address, principal's name, and nothing more, properly challenge such an article as unacceptable. Labelling this as a waste of time is a judgement call. Personally, I do not find it a waste of time to guard against dead air in Wikipedia. Even though most school articles are kept because a lack of consensus defaults to a keep, I will continue to keep the pressure on inclusionists such as yourself to stay honest. That, in my estimation, is quite a worthy goal. Denni☯ 23:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In summary, you will continue to nominate schools such that I and others have to keep watching AFD like a hawk to vote keep over and over? WP:POINT applies. Why not just assume that we're around, and stop nominating schools, or participate in some sort of discussion to create reasonable school criteria and stop nominating schools untill then? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How can I "continue" to nominate schools when I have yet to nominate even one? I respond to articles as they come before AfD, and that is it. If you are going to throw rocks, please take the time to research your target. Yes, I would be happy to participate in some sort of discussion, assuming it wouldn't be the rather one-sided one which seems to happen here, in which deletionists like myself request some restraint in publishing articles on every backwater school on the planet, but inclusionists like yourself insist on keeping each and every one. When "sometimes" can be part of the conversation on both sides, maybe we can get an intelligent conversation happening. Denni☯ 05:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You will continue to "pressurize" people like myself who want to keep wikipedia honest and do the best for its users, by wasting our time and forcing us away from more important topics. A great contribution. Kappa 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Honest. Perhaps you can expand on how it is more honest to keep every essentially empty article on every school than it is to choose the best articles, keep them, and demand expansion or deletion of the remainder. Perhaps you might also consider that you are forcing me to waste my time in attempting to keep Wikipedia free of what I see as meaningless drivel. Denni☯ 05:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reject your comment about using this AFD to make people "stay honest". The creator of *this* article, was entirely honest, as the school is verifiably real. Now, you're free to vote as you wish, and to think school's are non-notable, but please don't suggest that *this* AFD is about keeping people honest. Now, if somebody were to create a fake school (yet again), then an AFD would be an entirely appropriate place to keep things honest (by voting to delete). If such a case happens (again), I will happily vote to delete (again) in that case. --rob 21:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You misunderstand entirely what I say. Had I meant to question the motives of the articles author, I would have said so. I was using what is commonly known as "a figure of speech". Who I mean to keep honest is those who vote to keep articles which in any other measure would be deleted as CSD:G1 or CSD:A1, or, if they were about a person, CSD:A7. I am absolutely prepared to challenge these people at every turn, and ensure that they must be here to vote for their precious schools if they wish to keep them. Denni☯ 05:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the time I've spent talking here, I could have easily made a quick vote, and created dozens of one-line school stubs. If I did that, I would be as bad as the AFD spammers. Instead, I haven't, and I have spent time making what I think are decent school articles, and improving others. The only people school AFD SPAM hurts are those who care, and contribute. You're discouraging substantial contributions, but doing nothing to discourage mass creation of one-line stubs, or trivial articles. Perhaps you should focus your attention on those who knowlingly and intentionally create useless articles. I think it is distressing that you would say your intentionally wasting our time here. Frankly, if I showed as little respect for your time, as you do for mine, I wouldn't bother writing this comment to you, I would be making a dozen one-line stubs instead. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who needs to be "kept honest" (don't take offence to my comment, I'm just using a figure of speech). --rob 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I will try to say this without yelling. I do not discourage substantial contributions. I welcome substantial contributions. I beg for substantial contributions. Is "Rockford High School is a school in Rockford Ontario. Its principal is Ralph Black. It has 360 students. Its school colors are red and blue" a substantial contribution? Only if your expectations are very low. Mine are not. As a matter of fact, these appear to be very much the "trivial articles" you accuse me of doing nothing to discourage. Seems to me I'm doing everything I can to discourage them. And I beg to differ that I am wasting your time. Surely if your (literally) empty articles are worth keeping, they are worth defending. How is that a waste of time? It is not like I brought these to AfD, and it is not like I am setting out to find school articles to bring before AfD. Furthermore, no article gets a free ride on AfD. Did no one tell you that? What it looks like you want is for me to go away so you can have your own way. If you have made decent school articles, then I congratulate you. If they are decent school articles which contain worthwhile and interesting information about the schools they cover, and they come before AfD, I will vote to keep them. If they are like most of the pathetic pieces of drek that float to the surface here (school articles or otherwise), I will vote to delete them. Frankly, if you were writing dozens of one-line stubs instead of writing these comments to me, you would be contributing nothing much different from a large number of the school articles I've voted to delete. And yes indeed, you would be the spammer then. BTW, you can rest assured that I can always find time to assist anyone, deletionist or inclusionist, to hunt down people like Gateway1997 and dispatch him/her with as much extreme prejudice as Wikipedia allows us to muster. I agree that there is absolutely no excuse for that kind of puerile behavior. Denni☯ 06:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Frankly, I've had enough of my time wasted by him. I'm done with answering his facile and juvenile insults and condescending responses that pepper these AfD discussions. You really should know by now Rob, there is simply no reasoning with Edmontonians.--Nicodemus75 06:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And another sore loser Calgarian slinks off to bed... Denni☯ 06:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Xoloz who explain it very well on why keeping school. School is usually much more than just a name, address and principal. If the school has no student, I will switch my vote to delete. --Vsion 05:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no students during holidays. We could delete the articles then, and recreate them when the students return. :) --inksT 04:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - --Oblivious 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yikes, forgot to vote! Denni☯ 22:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Year-to-date VfD/AfD nominations on schools are 329. 282 of these article have not been deleted. 85% of nominated school articles are not deleted. As far as I'm concerned - that is a concensus not to delete school articles (or stubs) on the basis that they are schools.--Nicodemus75 17:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - there is not a consensus to either delete or keep school articles. All this "all school noms are bad-faith" and WP:POINT nonsense isn't helping the situation either. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never said there was either of those things. I said that an 85% VfD/AfD survival rate over the past 10 months establishes a "concensus 'not to delete'". I agree there is neither a concensus to keep, nor a concensus to delete - but there is clearly a concensus "not to delete".--Nicodemus75 19:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a logical fallacy, however, as not all keeps (and even fewer deletes) are based on the "all schools" mantra. In addition, opinions here based on that are sometimes disregarded by the closing administrator (see some of the previous AfDs here), which further shoots holes in that theory (remember, AfD is a discussion about particular articles, not groups of articles). So, what we have here is a rather uneasy 55/45 (well, supposively. With schoolwatch etc. it makes it tough to tell how many regulars really want to keep these articles) standoff. In my early days I was a "school inclusionist" too before I realized wikipedia's goals were more towards an encyclopedia and not a wiki, so I can see where they get their opinions from (although some of the recent ones giving opinions of keep due to thinking that there is a consensus to keep these articles or whatever is pretty bizarre in terms of AfD things). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure that someone who looks at the history of school AfDs and sees a ratio of 9:1 "not deleted" and assumes there is some sort of concensus "not to delete schools" is "pretty bizarre". Seems pretty rational to me.--Nicodemus75 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • An article which gets 16 votes to delete and 8 votes to keep is kept on the basis of "no consensus" (and please learn how to spell that word). Often, closing admins will require as high as 80 percent votes to be "delete' Before they will close a vote as consensus. An article must get, minimally, 2/3 + 1 votes to delete in order to be deleted, otherwise it is kept. The onus is hugely on the delete side to come up with votes. For consensus, 2/3 + 1 votes is equally required, whether to keep or delete. Since most votes on schools run around 50-50, or maybe 60-40 to keep, there is clearly no consensus for either keep or delete, so please stop trying to convince everyone of your mythical "consensus not to delete". This is not rocket surgery. Denni☯ 07:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No applicable basis for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, and no compelling reason for deletion given. Unfocused 06:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mattur[edit]

This looks like some sort of advertising spam, not an article fit for an encyclopedia. [edit] 04:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like advertising but also is pretty incoherent. Not notable in any case... can't find any evidence on Google that it would be. --W.marsh 05:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if someone wants to clean it up, I may reconsider--Rogerd 05:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious advertising. Even provides contact information. — JIP | Talk 06:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Its an Halo-map.Its big.[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Wikibofh 14:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James DeBello[edit]

Minor actor. Listing on IMDB means precisely nothing when it comes to notability. Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has credits on several notable films. Not my kind of films, but I think he is notable--Rogerd 05:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I messed up (nomination), twice (deletion)... being in more than one notable film would make one notable. At least notable enough for an online encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 800 05:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty obvious based on imdb credits. Obviously, the article shouldn't just recite imdb credits, but those credits easily qualify this article's existence. --rob 06:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets IMDB-related guidelines (if any exist) for Wikipedia a load better than some other actors we've got on here. Some pretty good credits, even if some of the films are not as major as the others. Filmography is not quite complete, as a quick gander at the database proves, but the non-filmography part of the article probably needs to be expanded too. Bobo192 06:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know this guy. Are any of the mentioned IMDB major speaking roles. If I remember correctly, wasn't he one of the early victims in Scary Movie 2? - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is in several major films and seems to have main roles in them. the wub "?!" 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed. Seems notable enough. (As an aside, Roger, Roy, Rob and Bob (Rob!) all contributed keep votes in the space of 50 minutes. Now I know they're absolutely not the same person but it just goes to show how strange coincidences can happen. If only there was a horse running today of the same or similar name I'm darned sure it'd be a winner!) Marcus22 14:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bob? Me? That's Bob with an O. The O is a crucial part of my identity! I suppose. Bobo192 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough, and besides, I want to keep the Bob/Rob thing going. Lord Bob 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and please accept my apologies for breaking up the Bob/Rob bandwagon. Hall Monitor 20:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as he is notable. Carioca 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Buckner[edit]

As I read WP:CSD this isn't elligble. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. Anyway this article sportscruft, it's an event that occured 4 hours ago, there's no plausible way to verify that this nickmake is notable and used by anyone but the guy who wrote this article. Doesn't really warrant an article even if people actually do use the nickname, just mention it on the bio page. W.marsh 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article cited as reference just compares the two. It doesn't rename hime. Jkelly 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tony Graffanino --Trovatore 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no such person --Rogerd 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jkelly. the wub "?!" 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and neologistic nickname.--Isotope23 16:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously Dottore So 06:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson[edit]

unverifiable--Trovatore 05:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, but might possibly be good enough for BJAODN --Trovatore 05:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-verifiable, probably a joke. But a weak joke. --W.marsh 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense --Rogerd 05:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not afraid of pirates. utcursch | talk 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to remove this crap from the history, then recreate as a disambig page. the wub "?!" 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the gay-baiting, probably an attack page on an actual person with that name. MCB 01:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: two votes above were deleted, and my comment was vandalized, by User:68.147.102.48. I have reverted. MCB 18:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keel-haul it, me harties. Alf melmac 13:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walk the plank with this rot. Budgiekiller 12:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, The Conservative[edit]

nn--Trovatore 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as total, utter nonsense. [edit] 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just barely makes claims to notability, but is totally non-verifiable and obviously a dumb joke. --W.marsh 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN and vanity --Rogerd 05:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity.--Alhutch 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and borderline speedy as nonsense.--Isotope23 16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Wikibofh 14:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracer gun[edit]

An article about "a toy gun used in the Hunter College High School game of Killer". [edit] 05:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Keep the cleaned up article. utcursch | talk 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard about the game, although not by the same name. The players use fake weapons to kill their fellow players. The game moderator gives them their target and a time limit. I'd be happy to see this merged into an article about the game, if someone can track it down. - Mgm|(talk) 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. I have heard of both the game and the toy (it is indeed a popular "weapon" for the game of killer, or was in my youth). It is a common enough kind of toy that it should have its own article. You can find a picture of the toy here (beware pop-up ad) and here. They are basically toy guns that shoot small plastic disks that fly frisbee-style. Crypticfirefly 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, this page has been in existance for ONE DAY. It isn't utter nonsense, give it a chance to develop. Crypticfirefly 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this article is only one day old and it is a real toy not something fake so we could keep it because it is verifiable and neutral too Yuckfoo 04:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the rewrite needs some extra wikification and a fixed template, but other than that it looks fine. Can you add some references/sources to it? - Mgm|(talk) 05:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing what I can, but short of consulting a reference book on collectible toys it isn't easy. (Not available at the moment.) I'll admit that I started from memory, but the various pictures of these things for sale on eBay in their original packaging gave me some clues. Trying to get a picture. Crypticfirefly 02:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and look for a clearer picture. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep as this article has undergone a major rewrite with thanks to Crypticfirefly. [edit] 15:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley's Proton Electron mass equation[edit]

Original research. Cnwb 06:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as spam. If not, a delete would be just fine. I also agree that it is original research and we, as a community, are not qualified to rate on things like this. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as patent nonsense - the author had me on his side until he had the nerve to claim "k0=9*10^9". That made me lose all respect for the article's research. Johntex\talk 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is definitely not "patent nonsense" by Wikipedia's definition. It is clearly not correct or sensible research, but that doesn't qualify it for a speedy. -- SCZenz 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it is not patent nonsense then that implies it is intelligible, so what does this line from the article mean: "Derivation will be submitted when this result is verified as consequential in the Wikipedia community."? --Johntex\talk 09:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that sentence is supposed to mean that, if we don't delete his article, he'll tell us how he got the answer. Obviously he's confused, but in any case it's only one sentence. Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense requires near-complete gibberish. -- SCZenz 15:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S K Krow[edit]

NN band vanity Cnwb 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Mann[edit]

The webpages are consistent, but he also seems to have been a major self-promoter himself already. I don't think the Iraq part is enough to make him notable.

  • Delete per nomination. Tfine80 06:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only thing close to being notable is a minor role in Swimfan. Keep it is a bad quality article, which makes it hard to realize the notablity of the subject--Rogerd 01:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Huh? He's a published author of two books, one of which was reasonably successful. How is that a not apparent notable fact? His Swimfan credit is really quite irrelevant.
  • Delete - an earlier recreation of this (with different facts) Monroe mann was speedied by me, and common consent of the afd, on September 30th (nnbio, nonsense, attack page). Unfortunately, I think this version needs to have its 5 days of fame, but if recreated, in any form, after that it should be shot on sight. --Doc (?) 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Doc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk
  • Keep. Published author. 64.108.199.247 15:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Mann published 2 books, one of which is #156,483 ranked in sales... the other of which is in the #600,000s. They are published by a small publishing house. Not exactly overwhelming evidence of notability as an author. He appeared on Wolf Blitzer, but that's not much of a claim to fame either. His service to his country is commendable, but not any more notable than the service that thousands of other young men and women have performed (and are currently performing). He's the CEO of a non-notable film company and the lead singer of a non-notable band. He had a minor role in a movie. So what are we debating here? This guy has had an interesting life, but not a notable one... at least not yet. His biggest attribute seems to be his shameless self-promotion (aka "Future Oscar Winner"). Delete because the gestalt is as non-notable as the individual achievements.--Isotope23 17:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be a different Monroe Mann to the last one we speedied. Still, nn. - Hahnchen 18:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Isotope23. Sliggy 19:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isotope23 is quite right. Dottore So 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are less notable people on wikipedia.org 64.108.199.247 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. Tireless self-promotion does not an encyclopedic bio make. Quale 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to BlackBerry. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crackberry[edit]

slangdef --Trovatore 06:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blackberry per Rogerd Johntex\talk 07:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This term has been noted widely, for example within the The Washington Times and The Economist. I've been bold and speedily redirected as the article's substantive content is already mentioned within BlackBerry, under Nicknames. Sliggy 15:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(there's already a redirect from the differently capitalised CrackBerry) Sliggy 16:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Available Seat Miles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cost Per Available Seat Mile[edit]

One of a number of aviation related dicdefs /nn entries being created by 211.120.52.144 Johntex\talk 06:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unless there's an appropriate redirect --Trovatore 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could #REDIRECT[[List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms]]--Johntex\talk 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect or delete: The same user (Special:Contributions/211.120.52.144) is still busily making more aviation/financial entries like this one. The info may be useful in a compilation like User:Johntex has suggested. - Neier 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable concept in air travel management, possibly merge somewhere. Kappa 14:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, better, merge. If an anon is providing useful info like this he or she should be encouraged as a valuable wikipedian - although also encouraged to write a longer article rather than numerous little ones.AndyJones 00:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please but a merge is okay too but the information is valuable Yuckfoo 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Available Seat Miles where I merged in some of this material. Makes two weak articles into a stonger one. Still needs work, but it's a start. Can this become a Speedy Redirect? Vegaswikian 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above, and I think you could go ahead and do it. Dottore So 06:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and redirect. Sounds fine to me. Also, please encourage the anon to make a list of terms as mentioned above. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The boardz[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic; more of a vanity article than anything. Should be deleted. --Qirex 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom jmd 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity NN --Rogerd 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super delete, yet more forumcruft. the wub "?!" 12:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page has been erased by an anonymous vandal, 65.144.11.153 and 65.151.123.50 twice now, I suggest that The boardz gets deleted fast.--Qirex 00:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, but let WP:CP handle it as probably copyvio. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kaeberlein[edit]

I am quite sure the text is a copyvio (article contains reference to a photo which isn't in the article). First, I thought about speedying it as a blatant copyvio, but the criterion demands that an online source is located and I haven't found one. Then I thought about speedying it under A7, but the article says "...he helped pinpoint the central gene that controls aging in brewer's yeast." and "he is now vice president, as well as a co-founder, of Longenity.". So I couldn't speedy under that either. Then I thought about bringing it to WP:CP for the slow copyvio deletion route, but without a source located, I had some trouble doing that as well. So AFD it is, this reads like a newspaper in-depth report and not an encyclopedia article, and I don't really think Matt Kaeberlin meets WP:BIO guidelines either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Rogerd 07:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a copyvio as there is a bit on the bottom claiming "Ingfei Chen, a writer in Santa Cruz, California, is waiting for her own head-clobbering epiphany." The text is from a Science of Aging Knowledge Environment article from 2002 written by Chen on Kaeberlein which is not available online for free via public access see [8]. Delete as copyvio but article could help to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 07:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS Our Caloric restriction article links to this article claiming him as a notable researcher in the field so he probably is notable enough to justify an article. Capitalistroadster 11:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for finding a source, I will tag this article as a copyvio, and add a link to this debate. If anyone wants to make a real article before it goes as a copyvio, it can be made a /temp subpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Forest Archipelago[edit]

Non-notable micronation. Quale 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, having written the article, I disagree. The NFA is notable as it is one of the longer-lived micronations. If you take the time to peruse their site, you will see that it is more developed than many micronations, including currency, postage, "bricks and mortar" presence. It has also been written up in 2 recent magazine articles.

It is certainly more notable and less a case of microvanity than some of the other micronations included in wikipedia, if you will look at all of them without respect to newness on the site, or level of completeness to date.

I would be more than happy to work to improve the article if there are deficiencies that you can point out to me.

All that being said, you guys make the rules, so do what you're going to do. I am happy to agree to disagree with you, and let the wiki-community make their decision, as I am a newbie here. I will of course abide by the community's decision. - jsheffield

  • Well, a micronation that I was involved with for some time lasted over 12 years (about five longer that NFA), and wouldn't qualify for an article (FWIW, The Commonwealth of Port Colice). Mind you, our presence was probably slightly less that NFA's (no currency, though we did have postage, for instance). Grutness...wha? 12:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Micro Delete I must say, I have never heard of the concept before. (We're all micro nations over here in Europe!) I think it's a grand idea. And I hope the NFA succeed in getting the independent country status they presumably seek. Hard to see what really distinguishes them from the likes of other communes (etc..) though? And most of those are not sufficiently notable to be here. I don't know. Maybe it's a question of longevity? Or of import to others in the micro state world? In any case, being around since 1998 makes me unconvinced of notability at this point in time. Marcus22 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Micronations have come up for deletion before. See the following for examples:
  • Notability generally involves some impact by the micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it (Pogo), or setting up a club on a web site (Atlasia), do not impact the real world at all. Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. Researching the Northern Forest Archipelago, I find that the external news coverage linked to by the article itself actually cites Wikipedia as its source, and so must be discounted when determining the notability of the micronation. There is no other news coverage, no independently written articles, and no evidence that the micronation has impacted upon the real world in any way. Delete. Uncle G 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncle G --> There are 2 external news articles, one of which lists wikipedia among its numerous sources (although why citing wikipedia as a source would preclude it from being considered an article in the "real world" seems strange to me anyway); the adk explorer article makes no mention of wikipedia at all. That won't necessarily change the outcome of this (as it seems pretty clear where this is headed), but I thought I would point it out. Is there a clearly defined criteria for inclusion of micronations into wikipedia, or is this done on a case by case basis? - jsheffield
      • AFAIK, it's on a case by case basis, but if I were to set forth a criteria about this perennial issue over which micronations Wikipedia should include, I'd use Uncle G's. -- llywrch 19:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • why citing wikipedia as a source would preclude it from being considered an article in the "real world" — That's a straw man. Nobody said any such thing. What I actually wrote was that the article "must be discounted when determining the notability of the micronation". An article that cites Wikipedia as its source cannot even be used to determine the verifiability of a subject. It certainly cannot be used to determine notability. Is there a clearly defined criteria for inclusion of micronations — Not inasmuch as editors have written a page similar to WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, or WP:WEB, no. I attribute this to there simply having been no incentive. We aren't inundated with micronation articles to the same extent that we are inundated with articles about persons, bands, companies, and web sites. Uncle G 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article just seems to spread misinformation, and is harmful. I want it gone, before it's used to make a bad precident. The fact one of the two "independent" references cite wikipedia, shows the harm of us publishing this stuff. We put something out, others follow it, then we follow them, then they follow us, then......... Let's stop the silly story cycle and delete it. --rob 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep it exists and is notable. freestylefrappe 23:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't exist, and it is not notable. Aside the from the silly claims of being a "micronation"; there really isn't evidence of any organization. The web site claims you can join up if you own some land but "...declaring your land to be a part of the NFA does not have an impact on your legal rights of ownership, it is more a state of mind than a binding legal contract...". In other words the entire article is about a guy's state of mind. This is a silly joke, which we should not partake. If this guy gets enough followers, creates a real organization, then we can create an article on his environmental organization, but never an article for a "micronation". --rob 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your bald, unsupported, assertion that this is notable does not address any of the specific reasons for the contrary that I laid out above. What real world events has the Northern Forest Archipelago been involved in? What independently written works on the subject of the micronation have been published? Uncle G 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it is not a real country, they just claim it is. The government hasn't responded because it's not a big enough deal for them to get involved. -- Kjkolb 03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is just microsilliness and in no way can be considered encyclopedic. C'mon! Dottore So 06:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice weekend everyone, I had no desire to upset anyone, as a number of people seem to be...contrary to Uncle G's addendum, I answered the assertions made concerning the notability of the NFA (and the external news coverage, if he would take the time to read the Adirondack Explorer article, but he has already made his mind up)...if my answers, or the article do not satisfy you, or offend you, vote for deletion. Jamie 11:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not about offense, Jamie, but this just isn't verifiable, enyclopedic information. Chick Bowen 22:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bentleys Proton Electron mass equation[edit]

Original research. -- SCZenz 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bret eslava[edit]

Not notable. Thue | talk 08:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, nn Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as borderline candidate for WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 20:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as CSD:A7. I see no assertion of notability. (I think it's important to differentiate between notability and mere distinction. Being named an Outstanding Employee, or finishing first in your class, or winning a karaoke competition, are all distinctions, but they do not confer notability unless they are widely known.) MCB 01:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page, not notable, au revoir. Budgiekiller 12:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Lippitt[edit]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich bitte um Löschung dieses Artikels, da ich den Verfasser kenne und weiss, dass der Inhalt frei erfunden ist. Falls Sie die Daten kontrollieren, werden Sie zu der selben Überzeugung kommen und festellen, dass es keinerlei Quellen zur Person von Gaston Lippitt gibt.

Vielen Dank für die Bearbeitung Sylvia Aust

(This was posted on the German AfD page. Approx. Translation: I request deletion of this article since the author is personally known to me and I know that the content is fictitious. If you check the facts you will come to the same conclusion, and you will find that there are no sources dealing with the person "Gaston Lippitt". This comment by Gwaihir 09:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete unless verified. I can find no English language internet references besides wiki-mirrors. There are German ones - but they may be mirros of de.wiki. --Doc (?) 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Side Guns[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Partly attack page. 203.120.68.68 08:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete invention. More suited to fiction blog or similar. Not appropriate for wikipedia. Should be removed. Guliolopez 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xdafied[edit]

Non-notable website, 50 google hits. Thue | talk 08:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't even try to say why its notable, only that the layout has changed three times... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for : No Data. feydey 17:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tursoft[edit]

Not notable. Thue | talk 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an advertising page of no encyclopaedic merit. Grobertson 09:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady and her Steel Tiger[edit]

Not a notable story, 41 google hits Thue | talk 09:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like lions[edit]

Probably not notable, having only released a few songs. Thue | talk 09:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghiyasuddin School[edit]

Non-notable less than 15 year old school. Accomplishments listed on their web site show nothing spectacular. I'm sure its nice and all, but no reason given for why it belongs in an encyclopeida. Johntex\talk 09:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a school. This encyclopedia does not have to be squeezed into 32 volumes CalJW 10:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it was the first primary school built, maybe. This would be better off as an article titled "Primary Education in (Insert name of country here)".--inksT 10:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that a reason for deletion? Kappa 14:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'keep article may not be perfect but no strong reason apparent to favour deletion --Isolani 11:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and to address systemic bias. Nice to see my creation getting some attention though. Kappa 14:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, amazingly, this article actually has some information on it that lifts it above phone book status (opened by a President, named after someone with a claim to notability). Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to take some pictures of flying pigs for Wikicommons. --Last Malthusian 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain Let me know how those pictures turn out.--Isotope23 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I realize that there are a tremendous number of arguments for and against retaining school articles, but whether the school is named after a notable person should be irrelevant. If a school is named after Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, that doesn't make it more notable than if the exact same school were named after the neighborhood in which it is located. If Ghiyasuddin, the school's namesake, is notable, then an article should be written about him rather than have his biography in an article about the school. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful article, which helps people learn about another country. --rob 16:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it isn't amongst the best I've seen, there already exist numerous articles on other infamous schools, and as CalJW says, Wikipedia doesn't have to be squeezed into a certain size... bjelleklang 16:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean non-infamous? Negative plus negative prefix which has linguistically ameliorated in this case :). Marskell 23:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and to resolve systemic bias. Silensor 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Inkypaws
  • Delete per nom.Gateman1997 22:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Marskell 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Systemic bias? Isn't that why we have 3.5x10^25 different language-based Wikipedias? And I think to myself - a school named after a person who introduced breadfruit. Now there's a reason for a claim of notability. CalJW may not be concerned with squeezing Wikipedia onto paper, but I am concerned with being able to squeeze Wikipedia onto servers (which are a little more expensive than paper), and onto access time. I think of you, CalJW, every time it takes a Wiki page 40 seconds to load. Denni☯ 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah we have 3.5x10^25 different language-based Wikipedias so we can all get everything we need just by learning 3.5x10^25 different languages. Kappa 02:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we should not have to know hundreds of languages to get information each wikipedia can store this okay Yuckfoo 02:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "....wikipedia's coverage of the many aspects of any country..." *ahem* --Oblivious 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The school is not unique as suggested for an article in WP:PJSCH. There is no claim in policy that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PJSCH suggests that almost all schools are unique enough for an article. Kappa 06:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Kappa notes, WP:PJSCH is an openly inclusionary model and certainly not authoritative (in the sense that it is somehow a binding set of principles). The enthusiasts for listing every school on the face of the planet will of course disagree, but this is just another nn assemblage of bricks. Dottore So 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the short school description with List of schools in the Maldives per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Last Malthusian. This entry actually contains interesting info. (Build with help of Japanese, named after person to introduce breadfruit to the Maledives and opened by president.) It's shorter than I'd like, but not a regular non-encyclopedic phonebook entry. Based on the size of the Maledivian community there's a fair chance the school also holds a record of some sort. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also named after Muhammad Ghiyasuddin, who ruled the Maldives as a Sultan. --Oblivious 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. Xoloz 09:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Schools are worthy of having a place on Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. All school noms are bad-faith hideous wastes of everyones time. Any user that is aware of this and nominates a school has violated WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it would be better to assume good WP:FAITH, no? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "All school noms are bad-faith" is itself a bad-faith comment. Marskell 15:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You raise a good point. I have corrected my comments and apologize for assuming that the nominator was aware of the hideous waste of time that school nominations inevitably are. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... also if all NN schools are to be deleted, then all NN movies (from hollywood, bollywood, tollywood, and god-knows-what-wood) should also be deleted, right? so... i say strong keep --Oblivious 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So your reasoning is that "if all schools that don't deserve to be in Wikipedia should not be in Wikipedia, then all other articles that don't deserve to be in Wikipedia should not be Wikipedia". Sounds fine to me (even if bordering on circular). Put the articles you feel are NN up on AfD, and vote in a manner consistent with your reasoning.--inksT 03:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Inky please don't misrepresent others' logic. Kappa 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Speak for yourself. You misrepresent the logic of people voting "keep" on schools on a regular basis. If you have a problem with my interpretation, debate it, and do it on my talk page, not here.--inksT 05:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your misrepresentation of Oblivious' logic should be discussed here, in context. Oblivious is clearly not claiming that Hollywood movies should be deleted even when "non-notable" of their type. Why aren't you listing non-notable pokemons and Hollywood movies on Afd, if you think it's appropriate? Kappa 05:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • We've moved on from debating this AfD, to you debating my interpretation. It's much more civil to have this sort of discussion on my talk page, because it very much disrupts the debate here, kinda like having a brawl on a sidewalk. Any contextual issues can be solved with a link back here. How about it? Respond on my talk page, please.--inksT 05:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Uh - Inky didn't respresent anyone's logic. Oblivious asked what he thought was a rhetorical question with a "no" answer and Inky surprised Oblivious with a "yes" answer... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hipocrite, I thank you for retracting your allegation that of bad-faith. However, I feel compelled to point out that I believe in this nomination and I am not attempting to make any sort of point, other than that this particular article fails the test of notability and should be deleted. If you look at my Contributions, you will see that I nominate a fair number of articles for deletion because they fail notability standards. Schools are a very small percentage of my delete nominations or votes. Schools, businesses, destroyers, girrafes, eggplants, people, or any specific instance of any other thing needs to be notable enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia or he/she/it should not be included. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that all schools are notable or that all schools should or must be kept. I believe the true waste of time is in creating and defending non-notable articles, not the effort to have them excised from the project. And to answer Oblivious' question, my answer would be "absolutely", not notable bands, movies, etc. should be deleted are deleted here everyday. Schools do not have a policy protecting them from the same legitimate scrutiny. Johntex\talk 21:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will second the "clap, clap" for a mature retraction. And I will also second John's larger point. I won't nom schools (I never go looking for them anyway) but I vote delete when there is no assertion of notability beyond "the bricks and mortar." I'm sure a lot of work has gone into the school's project but there is nothing binding about it. Wiki is not a directory. Wiki is discursive but not indiscriminate. I simply do not find schools notable. Marskell 21:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. It is dealing with the inflexible inclusionist that makes me a more inflexible deletionist when I would much rather be flexible. I am quite prepared to vote in favor of a school article where some merit is shown, but I will fiercely resist blanket approval of schools simply because they are schools. Denni☯ 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It is dealing with the inflexible inclusionist that makes me a more inflexible deletionist when I would much rather be flexible" is as clear a way to put it as I can imagine. Marskell 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denni how can you claim to be flexible when you aren't even prepared to share server space with schools? Kappa 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From your comment, it seems to me that you are not interested in reading any posts other than your own. Not only have I stated repeatedly that I support school articles where the school can show some reasonable degree of notability, but I have even (gasp!) actually voted to keep some school articles. What I am not prepared to do, Kappa, is to share server space with articles on every so-called school on this planet, most of which are uttterly lacking in anything worthy of note. Have you even once voted to delete a school article? Thought not. Denni☯ 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His reasoning is the same as mine - schools with notability, just like every other subject. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, it just need to be expanded. There are many school articles that started out as stubs and later became full articles after contributions by multiple users. Hardly any of these full school articles are nominated for AfD. --Vsion 04:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely. If a school article contains information which demonstrates the school is of note, and is what could be described as a full article, it will not be deleted. It seems those who contribute school articles feel all that is necessary is to name a building as a school, and that constitutes enough info for it to deserve to be kept. Denni☯ 21:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another school targeted for easy deletion because it is in Asia. Help fight systemic bias against Asian schools by voting keep.--Nicodemus75 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a load of rot. You have no evidence of systemic bias because none exists. Most normal Wikipedians will vote to keep or delete articles on the basis of their content, not their subject. It is those like yourself who vote to keep on the basis of subject that see plots where there are none. Denni☯ 23:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You and many other presumably "normal Wikipedians" want to delete articles based on their subject (being a "non-notable school"). Kappa 00:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Skritch skritch skritch (sound of hair being pulled out). Maybe if I type r e a l l y s l o w l y, I won't be misunderstood. I will vote to delete an article on anything which does not have requisite notability. I do not have some special vendetta against schools. I will also vote to delete articles on destroyers, pokemons, and star trek characters which are not demonstrably notable. However, I do not vote to delete schools categorially in the same way that some vote to keep them, that is to say, without apparently even reading the articles to ensure something is actually being said. Denni☯ 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you vote to delete villages, Simpsons episodes, and metro stations which are "not demonstrably notable", you are not a normal wikipedian, and you are wasting your time and that of the editors who will have to outvote you. Kappa 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That, Kappa, is the whole point. If you want your way, you will have to outvote me. I will be here, and I will not let you get your pathetic little article for free. Denni☯ 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • What? That's a personal attack if I ever saw one. No need to go around calling others "abnormal" because they hold a different viewpoint to the majority. In accordance with WP:NPA, you might want to reconsider that statement.--inksT 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • This from the editor that calls the philosophical position that schools are inherently notable, "stupid". Please don't go around lecturing others about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL until you clean up your own act.--Nicodemus75 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please. Firstly, describing a philosophical position as stupid is not an attack on the person who holds it (eg. You are stupid vs You are a Nobel Prize Winning Wikipedian, but your argument is stupid). Second, I've only ever called it stupid once. Third, I retracted it and apologised the moment it was pointed out to me it was rude. Fourth, my conduct has no bearing on the rudeness (or otherwise) of your conduct. Even if I've called you "abnormal", it doesn't grant you license to call someone else "abnormal". In constrast, your use of the term "not a normal Wikipedian" was clearly directed at the individual, not the arguments he was advancing, and you're making up excuses to justify it.--inksT 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please. First of all, it is at best uncivil to refer to someone else's philosophical position "stupid", and a great many editors on WP would consider it a personal attack. Next, I (nor anyone else for that matter) have not referred to anyone as "abnormal", in fact, you are the only one to have used this term so far. Next, it was Denni (like yourself, one of "those who routinely nominate or vote to delete school articles") who first made the statement that: "Most normal Wikipedians will vote to keep or delete articles on the basis of their content, not their subject," indicating that those of us who vote to keep or delete on articles on the basis of their subject are somehow "not normal Wikipedians" by obverse implication. When KAPPA (obviously not me or my sockpuppet) simply retorted about what 'must' constitute a "normal wikipedian" by that standard, you accused him of making a personal attack. As to your contention that your misbehavior doesn't give "me" (or in this case, Kappa) license to abuse others, you are correct, but your abusing others or being uncivil and then going about admonishing others for being uncivil does make you a hypocrite. What I'd like to know, is why you weren't rushing to remind Denni about his uncivil statements when he suggested that those of us that decide to vote on the basis of subject are "abnormal" (as you put it).--Nicodemus75 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Perhaps you should get out a dictionary and look up "normal", Nicodemus. No, wait, let me do it for you. "normal - adj. 1. regular, usual, typical" Not so scary after all, huh? No mention of brain scans, ECT, or twitchy eyes. No, school inclusionists are probably not "normal" Wikipedians. "Normal" Wikipedians actually take the time to read articles before voting on them, and actually ask themselves whether an article contains anything of merit before deciding to keep it. This is true of schools, pokemons, and star trek characters. If stating what is apparently true can be construed as a personal attack, then all of us are in big trouble. Now can I help you with the definition of "abnormal"? Denni☯ 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not about viewpoints, it's about actions. Many normal wikipedians think "delete Simpons episodes" but they don't bother voting that way when they realize there's no consensus to do it. 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Agree with Denni. No one has mentioned Asia. The nom, votes and argument would be the same if it were Kansas School, Kansas City, Kansas. The repeated recourse to systemic bias in these keep arguments is specious. Marskell 00:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The claim that there is not a systemic bias against schools outside of the English-speaking geographical pale is specious. By their very nature, there is a systemic bias against schools whose primary source references are in another language. This renders what "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools" consider to be articles of an inferior quality and more likely to garner delete votes on the basis of a poorly-written article and difficulty of verifiability. Asian schools have been conspicuously targeted in the past 45 days by a variety of "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools". Apart from the bad faith mass-nomination of 24 schools in one day in September, Asian schools represented 15% of all school AfD nominations in the month, while representing a much smaller percentage of the total number of school articles on Wikipedia. If that doesn't consitute a systemic bias, I am not sure what does.--Nicodemus75 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • A systemic bias is systemic. It does not pop up suddenly one day or one month, and the number of school pages that show up in a month is small enough that statistical fluctuation is everything. I would also question your use of the term "conspicuously targeted". I can only assume that you see a plot a-hatchin' when you use language like that. First, there have not been a whole lot of Asian schools nominated, Second, the vote counts for those schools was pretty much the same as it usually is, with the usual cast of character casting the usual distribution of votes. In fact, one Asian School, Apeejay Public School, actually garnered some keep votes from some (myself included), who, as you so quaintly put it, "routinely nominate and vote to delete schools." If you really wish to test this conspiracy theory of yours, you may want to go back to those delete votes and see who it was that originally brought them to AfD. I expect you will find they were nominated by a diverse group, including some who do not participate here on a regular basis. Denni☯ 06:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thecorpse.com[edit]

Not a notable website, 15900 google hits. Thue | talk 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete alexa rank in the millions. — brighterorange (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. "TheCorpse.Com was founded in 2003 by dutch Superstar rapper Cilvaringz." is patently untrue. I'm not a music buff, but if he hasn't made the charts here in the Netherlands he can't be a superstar rapper. - Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are weak like clock radio speakers

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moo Point[edit]

Dicdef. 203.120.68.68 10:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN. Joke dictdef, based on the real term moot point. Grutness...wha? 12:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it seems to be used occasionally but it's still a dictdef/neologism. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black bat[edit]

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins Sequel[edit]

Delete. This is essentially a repost of the deleted Batman Begins 2 with less content (see the VfD for that article) but is probably not close enough to the old content to be a speedy. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and this article can contain nothing but speculation and rumor at this point. android79 11:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Rogerd 12:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for internet rumours. Save that for the fanboy forums. Jeff schiller 13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Delete. --Optichan 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable rumour. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even anything there to talk about. --InShaneee 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT delete the page was great before everybody chopped it up. There have been rumors flyinf around about Catwoman, Penguin and The JOker will be in the film to. The SPider-Man 3 web page had alot of rumors and speculation for along time. The page was great before.
  • Delete. The article can always be revisited and done up fancy when there's something more to this sequel than just rumours and unconfirmed reports.--Bacteria 07:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I voted delete on the last Batman Begins sequel page (under an IP Address, rather than my Username)! The last one was deleted because of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this one should be aswell. - Bwfc 19:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mtsaturn[edit]

Non-notable name derived from, according to the article, the initials of a certain person (non-notable) and the name of the planet. Refers to a web site, and little else. Rob Church Talk 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, ad, contextless, contentless ... Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Rogerd 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The web site that this article is trying to promote is not notable. --Metropolitan90 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's Gym[edit]

Non-notable sports facility. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. Rob Church Talk 12:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jokaroo[edit]

Non-notable website. Al 12:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It meets WP:WEB on the aspect "Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members". When I signed up just to see how members there were, I received member id 45530. It exceeds the minimal requirement by over 9 times. -- SoothingR 12:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure member ids are given out in order? - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite gets quite a few Googles but is currently an ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently notable, but definitely needs a rewrite -Abe Dashiell 13:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital Radio Pulse[edit]

Non-notable hospital radio station. Rob Church Talk 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as far as I know we have a few articles on radio stations in the AM band. It shows number of Google hits [10] so this article is not a hoax. It clearly needs to be rewritten, though. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be non-notable and I agree, not very well written. Maltmomma (chat) 23:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't tell from the article, or the station's web site (which exists but is "under construction" and has no content other than contact info), or the other mentions of it (MediaUK) whether this is an actual licensed broadcast station or just an unlicensed low-power building/campus station. If the former I would vote keep based on precedent, but if the latter, it does not seem to meet the bar of notability or even verifiability. MCB 01:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Hall[edit]

I feel that this article is purely self-promotional and irrelevent knowledge. 202.122.69.82 12:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability established. Keep. DS 14:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Established how? I'm a big booster for the Michigan music scene, but unless I'm totally missing something, I don't see anything here that meets WP:MUSIC. Sadly, I have to go Delete for now.--Isotope23 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grand Prize in the BMI John Lennon Songwriting Contest, and being a semifinalist in the MtvU thing? I think those are notable. DS 16:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are great accomplishments, but they still fall short of WP:MUSIC unless you consider the BMI John Lennon Songwriting Contest to be a major award on the level of a Juno or Grammy. It appears to be more of a scholarship than a major award though.--Isotope23 16:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC maybe later when they get more notable --JAranda | yeah 01:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

/* Tally Hall */ The Lennon award is a grammy for young songwriters, they have an unprecedented underground following (6 in wikipedia guidlines), and banana man is an internet phenomenom. keep it.

    • You'll be pretty hard pressed to prove that the Lennon award is anywhere close to a grammy in importance. As for your other contention, can you provide any evidence to back up you claim that Tally Hall satisfies WP:MUSIC #6?--Isotope23 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable enough. Dottore So 06:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're just 3 weeks away from putting out an album that will surely bring their notoriety up to Wiki guidelines. Put the discussion on hold for 2 months, I say.

DELETE. Realistically, the chances that their new album will give them enough notability to meet the wikipedia guidelines are slim to none. There are literally thousands of such bands out there who put out albums and fail to get noticed, why would these guys be any different? Certainly there is a chance that they could become big, but that chance is infinitly small and thus I see no is no reason for tableing the debate. Its like saying: "I'm going to hold off on planning my retirement until after I've won the lottery." Certainly I have a chance of winning the lottery, but that chance is so small that it dosen't make rational sense to take such a possiblity into consideration.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Mahon[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Deletion: Not notable.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insulting. NN. KeithD 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone removed the vfd somehow. I just discovered the article via a random article search. --One Salient Oversight 12:30, 6 October 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Mahon[edit]

personal attack. Not encyclopedic. Not acted on in July 2005 One Salient Oversight 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied again (by me)--Doc (?) 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Six screaming niggers[edit]

Non-notable. Three google hits. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • An article on a guy without limbs that sings in a baby carriage would make notable sense to me, but an article on his band that gets only 3 google hits wouldn't. Speedy under A7. -- SoothingR 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately not a speedy candidate because A7 is for nn-bio, not band vanity. Another example why we need a speedy for bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. Isotope23 15:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 17:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band with IMO offensive name. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this please it is fake and offensive too Yuckfoo 03:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the author of this page I am well aware the content of this page is quite questionable and arguably sensitive, however, I do feel that this page cannot be deemed 'irrelevant’ context and should be preserved as an entry on the Wikipedia server. I can assure all naive readers that indeed this band exists and I believe the interesting, albeit unusual details of the band members deems this relevant for archival on Wikipedia. I should also note that although at the time of writing, this page on Wikipedia has recieved but 3 views on Google, it has only existed for a little over 24 hours as I created this page last night. Obviously this article is a stub and hopefully over time a reader with more information on the band will come forward and provide information towards this page. Until then, I fully believe this article should wholly remain as a stub on Wikipedia as it is relevant to the history of music, (if only a fraction). Furthermore, although the use of the racist connotation 'niggers' may be considered 'sensitive', banning this page on the reason of political correctness is just another form of censorship. Wikipedias' simple aim is to provide information to the masses via the internet and as this particular band has a seldom source of information on it, I feel it's Wikipedias' aim to provide as much information as possible out of the little that's already available on the internet. Thank you for your consideration. --Topclaw 15:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn as per WP:MUSIC. (The perceived offense of the band's name is irrelevant; we have an article on nigger in any case.) MCB 01:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSBMCB. Chick Bowen 00:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete How is this band non-notable? Huh? I think something this funny and weird deserves a place on Wikipedia. Think about it. (Unsigned comment by 220.235.250.122 — CB)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy as a nonsense copy of Acceleration. Lupo 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worseleration[edit]

Humorous attempt at a hoax, not even all that funny (relies on the humour inherent in the word "Worseleration" fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Online piano lessons and Piano lessons[edit]

Adspam. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Piano Lessons --GraemeL (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. Marskell 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per nomination. utcursch | talk 13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as well as any others with the same text. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these and any like them. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Ad. *drew 11:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per nom. --Qirex 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It may not be what Wikipedia is "for" but I come to wikipedia for links such as these rather than going to Google. I trust the links recommended by wikipedia articles as being somehow safer. Perhaps I should search for a Wikioooogle? -rlguye 15:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom.Rhetoricalwater 22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Johnathy[edit]

Non-notable. only one Google hit. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as vanity/hoax.. the image seems strangely irrelevant to the point that I don't believe it's even a picture of "Timothy Johnathy". — brighterorange (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep- quite notable and popular. he acts as a inspiration to others. --Sand-Bar 06:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander's Trick[edit]

Original research. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not convinced its original research. Kappa 14:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google is slightly muddled by the inconvenient name, but [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16] show that it's something real in advanced topology (note - except the last, all the links are to Adobe Postscript files). Keep. DS 14:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not convinced it's accurate--where's the center of the disk supposed to go? Certainly needs to be explained better, but even once it is, I think it'll be kind of a trivial observation that ought to be merged somewhere (but I don't know where) --Trovatore 16:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not original research: not only is this well-known in topology, a Google search for 'Alexanders trick topology' gives 46500 hits. Result is more general than stated: any homeomorphism of the boundary of the n-ball extends to a homeomorphism of the ball. The map as stated has a removable discontinuity at the center (the center maps to the center).--JahJah 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was my guess, but it's not what the article currently says. It still strikes me as kind of borderline for a whole article; isn't there somewhere to merge it? BTW perhaps you'd like to rephrase it so it's correct, and throw in the n-dim case as well. --Trovatore 18:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JahJah. Xoloz 09:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This will be J. W. Alexander, and as Alexander trick is well-known to Google. Move, clean-up, all those good things. Not a delete in a million years. Charles Matthews 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is obviously some bullshit because F(0) is undefined.  Grue  12:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Lots of functions have F(0) undefined. Xoloz 14:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yet the article claims that F is defined on D2 and it is homeomorphism. Now F(x)=f(x/|x|)/|x| looks more like the desired function. Grue  15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Alexander trick (or perhaps Alexander's trick). I expanded the article a bit based on some papers I found via Google. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are related results which are referred to as Alexander's Trick, for example: A homeomorphism of a disk that fixes the boudary sphere is isotopic to the identity, relative to the sphere. This type of result is also important because it works in PL as well as Top. --JahJah 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you read the article after I've expanded it (which I did just before my vote here)? I think this is now included in the article. Anyway, I'd be very grateful if you could have a look and check what I wrote, because I don't know that much topology. Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jitse: I did not see your edit: looks good. I have made a minor correction to the second Alexander's trick. --JahJah 17:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jitse and JahJah: it looks much better now than it did at the time of nomination. My only quibble is that it's tacitly assumed that Sn and Dn+1 are embedded in Rn+1 with center at the origin and the usual scalar multiplication on Rn+1. But perhaps that's easy enough to figure out (assume the author meant something obvious, try it, see it that works), and explaining it might just add verbiage and make the page harder to follow. --Trovatore 05:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original research claim not established.--Nicodemus75 17:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I woke up such many commentaries and I want to say that originally I did must write ||x||f(x/||x||) for the true formula for the extended homeomorphism. My best wishes are that discussions continue in a constructive fashion. Of course I vote Keep. Juan Marquez 14:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I fair to have a surface understanding of this article, it seems harmless enough. Klonimus 00:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is taught in beginning topology courses. I have some further comments (and references) that I will put on the talk page. --C S 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar anlend[edit]

Article makes claim of notability ("very famous man in Sweden") for appearing on multiple talk shows and game shows as celebrity. Google returns just over 100 hits for "Oskar Anlend", all of which pertain to his participation in Call of Duty and similar online games. DS 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm Swedish, and he is certainly not "very famous" in Sweden. In addition, the article is crap. Delete. Uppland 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom -- ReyBrujo 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uppland CLW 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vanity or nonsense or both. / Peter Isotalo 15:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ka Webspy[edit]

Found this marked as a speedy deletion; since this is a bit elaborate for usual vanity, I figured it would be best to run it through AFD. No vote. Ral315 WS 14:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio, though IMO someone who's claim to fame is blogging is CSD:A7 speedy material.--Isotope23 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, blogger. feydey 17:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of alkanes[edit]

This list is superfluous next to Category:Alkanes; it can never be complete, as is pointed out on the talk page. Physchim62 14:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only information of (possible) use are the names of alkanes (C=37 to 100), which should possibly be outlined on the main alkane page? -- postglock 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listing these on the main alkane page would push that article over the reasonable limit for article sizes. - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list. Definitely not superflous next to Category:Alkanes. Issues on talk page are for editors to deal with, and are not a valid deletion criterion. -- Decumanus 06:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list orders the alkanes by number of carbon atoms, gives molecular formulas and synonyms. None of which can be done in a category without a lot of unneccesary duplicate links. This is NOT superfluous! - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know just enough about chemistry to agree with Decumanus and MGM. Xoloz 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and then redirect to Category:Alkanes --New Progressive 20:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, Lists and Cats are not the same thing, and a list of alkanes can do so much more with ordering and names than the cat. (Not to mention, mentioning ones that are currently articleless) 132.205.93.89 22:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A template is not practical for branched isomers, which is something that this list could do easily. I agree with Mgm that this is no task for the category page alone. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, it is a useful list and can be expanded more than a cat can. Maltmomma (chat) 23:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf melmac 13:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Pilatus 12:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketchat[edit]

nn chatroom...only 10 people at a time.. :/ there are a millions of IRC chatrooms like that. Delete. -- SoothingR 12:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well yes, IRC chatrooms with 10 people are common place... but from what I understand, #cricketchat boasts the likes of prominent cricket writers Thomas Rose, Steve Thompson and Chris Weston - all of which write for the popular website Cricket-Online. That in itself makes the chatroom unique, does it not?


  • Keep Well worth an entry, home of influential cricket writers. --Doctor Treb 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get a few hundred hits on Google for "Cricketchat". Hard to see how it can be influential and so untalked about. (Don't exactly overload on Chris Weston et al either!) Happy to be proven wrong! Marcus22 14:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and vanity. even if it is kept, it needs to be rewritten because right now it is hardly encyclopedic.--Alhutch 15:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 07:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the website and the writers deserve an entry, but there's really not much to say about an IRC channel. If it has to be kept, mention it in the article on the website it's attached to (if we have it). - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Marcus22. Xoloz 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pard[edit]

Dicdef of a non notable slang. 202.156.6.59 14:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google turns up what seem to be uses of "pard" as short for "leopard" in the 19th century, but not much else. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Xoloz 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Crypticfirefly 23:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Palmateer-Semrick[edit]

Musician from not notable groups, with no entries of those in WP. feydey 15:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Choco Orta[edit]

Delete per nomination. The reasons that I'm nominating this page for deletion is because it seems more of an advertisement by EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT, then an article. NPOV, Fax Numbers, e-mail and newspaper reviews Tony the Marine 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Google thinks that this she is a notable Puerto Rican musician, but the EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ads and the Spanish translation should be removed. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this guy needs an article someone can write one from scratch. This one is utter crap. -R. fiend 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Needs more eyeballs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She may be notable enough in a few years, but not quite just yet. Bwithh 09:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Allmusic.com shows her as having released a couple of albums see [17]

This music of Puerto Rico article indicates that she is fairly significant in their music industry. [18] This Latin Beat magazine article states that she has performed overseas including in France [19]. In my view, she is notable enough under WP:music but this article is of little value in its current state. I would vote to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I stubified a large article, and I suggest people look at the old version before they vote, since the current version doesn't include most of the details (which I haven't had a chance to verify). Also, I won't complain if somebody undoes what I did, and works with the old version. I might have gone to far, but I didn't see the old content being a good basis for an article. --rob 11:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done to Rob for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 11:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a squeaker, and a case could be made either way on this, since so much of the "press" on her is purely promotional. But, the CDs, minor film roles, and touring can be beleived, even if the hype is discounted. --rob 11:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recycled version. Alf melmac 12:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the rewrites. --MacRusgail 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the rewrites and expand them further down the line. Thanks for your work, rob. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, following move. -R. fiend 21:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William b. travis vanguard and academy[edit]

The article does not assert notability of the school. 202.156.6.61 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state snack foods[edit]

I fail to see why those snack foods are "official" in certain US States. As far as I know; there's no kind of law that makes these kind of things official. This is, to my beliefs, a hoax, delete. -- SoothingR 15:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future projections[edit]

original research --Trovatore 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete personal essay. Gazpacho 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are both right, but i was wondering if the content holds: is there a place in wikipedia (or elsewhere) where future projections are delt with the same rigour as you both are demonstrating in this self-monitoring community; that is, a future-wise encyclopedia? fidocancan 19:34, 8 October 2005 (GMT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Random Al[edit]

Vanity article for non notable 'comedy trio', consisting of 3 kids. JoanneB 15:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pretty Harsh It probably took the writer a lot of time to write the article, and as far as I'm concerned, there's decisive no reason why not to keep it. There's a lot of crap in wikipedia that no one has heard of, and besides, no one would protest it if it were college students.
    • Delete - I can't speak for anyone else, but I would protest even more if it were college students. And the only reason Wikipedia is full of notable stuff nobody has ever heard of is because the standard for education in the 21st century is a joke. --Agamemnon2 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable by independant sources. FWIW, I would protest just as much if it'd been college kids. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, unverifiable. Xoloz 10:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Councilism[edit]

OR/essay. DS 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creating counters using show strings[edit]

anyone know anything about this? --Trovatore 16:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain as nominator--just conceivably someone knows what the author's talking about and can clean it up into a useful article. --Trovatore 16:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if rewritten it's still a how-to. — mendel ☎ 17:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. This is not an article. WP:NOT a how-to. Friday (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no technical manuals. Refers to 3b2. Gazpacho 17:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you think Wikibooks might want it? --Jacquelyn Marie 19:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it might be a how-to for a programming task in PHP, but I can't be sure. --Carnildo 21:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If wikibooks has a module on 3b2, transwiki, otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning text to the base of the frame[edit]

non-encyclopedic --Trovatore 16:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this seems to go along with Creating counters using show strings, my last AfD nomination. Maybe all these tips for using 3b2, whatever that is exactly, could be collected into a single article. --Trovatore 16:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no technical manuals, howtos, or FAQ lists. Gazpacho 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to. --Carnildo 21:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks f possible, otherwise, delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 CFL Standings[edit]

Information duplicated in 2005 CFL season. kelvSYC 16:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Possible search term. You could have just done it. Bhoeble 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReDirect as per Bhoeble. --CastAStone 18:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 to User:JazzyB. -- RHaworth 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jasna Camdzic, Jasna Čamdžić[edit]

Not notable actress, not in IMDb, google gives no info on actual films or plays she's been in. WP is not a homepage eighter. feydey 17:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy as A7 vanity. Being an actress is not a claim of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, according to WP:CSD it is. I quote 'An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society...'. It does not estalish notability, but it does assert it according to policy. --Doc (?) 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'There is no evidence that Ms Camdzic is a notable actress such as appearing in notable films or significant plays. This appears to have been written by her right down to her e-mail address and contact details. These details are not suitable for an article in the mainspace and there has been no evidence that her career is as yet notable to warrant an article. However, this page would be suitable for her userpage assuming she has written this herself. Being an actress or actor is not in itself an assertion of notability as a person appearing in a school play, in a home movie or an amateur theatre production could make such a claim. You would need an assertion that she is best known for roles in theatre, cinema, television or radio to assert notability. Userfy if she is a registered user, otherwise speedy delete. Capitalistroadster 00:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as self-promotion. Created by anon, so userfying is inappropriate. Without the contact details this is a minimal stub, and there appears to be no way to verify she's a working actress. Just studying to be one isn't enough. You need to get roles too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It had a picture - only registered users are allowed to upload. So we can userfy to the picture uploader. -- RHaworth 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Delete, but not speedy Sadly, per Doc's quotation, the policy as written seems to allow "I'm an actor" as an assertion of notability. Of course, nn. Xoloz 10:09, 7 October 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 delete. -R. fiend 21:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TrainWeb[edit]

No purpose other than advertising a website Ahockley 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jake Experience 2 and Album5[edit]

  • Delete. I can find no evidence that either the band or the album actually exist. -- BD2412 talk 17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The band may be legit, but I don't think this information is useful to enough of the general public to warrant an article. Being a professional musician myself, I would highly suggest (to the creator of "Jake exp. 2") the creation of a dedicated web site instead. --RichG 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. - It seems this probably also qualifies as being some relation to "original research" Wikipedia:no original research --RichG 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (in addition to lack of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines -- RichG 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conwiki[edit]

The site Conwiki.com is not operational. The site only displays a Database Error. Pym98 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Pym98 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete substub and platform for external link. Database error, could be temporary, so I don't think it's important. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinta Palmer[edit]

No entry at IMDB, and Google search on "Jacinta Palmer"+Patrick turns up empty despite supposedly famous criminal case. Likely hoax, and other articles contributed by Slimy earthworm (talk · contribs) such as Stephen Silvapulle should be looked at. -- Curps 17:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Doesn't show up on iMDB because she is not reknowned for her acting or screenwriting prowesses (and this is a service you have to pay for) but rather non-fictional stories in australian newspapers, judge on the australian young writer's guild. iMDB also does not show many actors in small television series. Not a strong argument.
  • Not a famous criminal case, as it never went past police proceedings. Just a funny anecdote told in the "you'll never guess what happened" columns.
  • Unverifiable information doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia, and pranks among a small circle of friends aren't really encyclopedic or "famous". -- Curps 18:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the information is actually verifiable. Quite a famous name in Australia, due to her loss of the role of Samara. For this information to be considered a prank between a small circle of friends, that would assume that i actually know the people in question. Just regurgitating the information found in various magazines and columns. As you can tell, i'm a fan of their work.
  • Most of the information can be googled successfully. If you're in the right area, some of the information regarding awards can still be found on major newpaper archives before they become for paid users only. --Slimy earthworm 18:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe there should be a "WP is not a collection of funny anecdotes" policy. --Trovatore 18:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • oh, of course not. But it's nice to read some light-hearted material about people you like to read about. Wikipedia is about publishing all aspects of a person's life. I'm sure you'd appreciate it if you were in a position to. The story behind it is much more complex which i was hoping to detail when i found the article again. It inspired her thematically based book of short storiesSlimy earthworm 18:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this as patent nonsense. Googling "Jacinta Palmer" turns up one hit in AU... for a girl in primary school: [25]. Similar situation with Stephen Silvapulle, though in this case it is a kid who was apparently wrongly arressted for public drunkeness at that Australian Open. I'm not trying to bite the newbie, but it would appear these articles are a systemic series of hoaxes using the names of real people, possible known by the author.--Isotope23 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not patent nonsense (alas), but an almost certain hoax. Delete with extreme prejudice unless Simply Earthworm can bust out some solid verification. Lord Bob 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per everyone else. Slimy earthworm, please take note that the bar for inclusion of actors on both IMDb and Wikipedia is quite low (in my opinion), and yet this person still fails to meet that. The claim that "iMDB also does not show many actors in small television series. Not a strong argument." is patently false. Hall Monitor 20:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am Australian and have never heard of her. ImDB does cover Australian television problems and there are severe verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ummm, why can't this be Speedily Deleted since the information is unverifiable and almost certainly invented? Dottore So 07:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

blanked due to WP:OTRS request

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toby and Dominic Brown[edit]

Apparent nonsense/vanity by Slimy earthworm (talk · contribs), see his other articles which have also been nominated for Afd. -- Curps 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Toby and DOminic brown are up and coming designers accredited with designing clothes for "the cat empire" on their recent tour as published by New Weekly magazine.Slimy earthworm 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not patent nonsense (alas), but an almost certain hoax. Delete with extreme prejudice unless Slimy earthworm can bust out some solid verification. I am copy-pasting this all because it seems to be true! Lord Bob 19:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nonsense. 144.132.45.148 (Slimy earthworm (talk · contribs)?) just blanked the article...--Isotope23 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article has been restored but it still has severe verifiability problems. A Google search for "Toby Brown" "Cat Empire" gets one result see [26]. A search for "Dominic Brown" "Cat Empire" gets a db Magazine article [27] on general music news. Dominic Brown is reported as filling in for Andy Taylor on a Duran Duran US tour which is a claim to notability but isn't about this Dominic Brown.Capitalistroadster 01:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hibbit[edit]

Created by Slimy earthworm (talk · contribs), who seems to have created a number of vanity/hoax articles also nominated for Afd, see his contributions. -- Curps 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • definitely not made up. well known creation funded by the university of melbourne. Can provide images.Slimy earthworm 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ok maybe that's better. accreditted the character and not the creators yet. Deleted all their info but i'll repost it when their name is more renowned, which will be very soon in any case. Just saves the hassle and i can gather more information for reposting it later.Slimy earthworm 19:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slimy earthworm, we need verifiability. Put something in the article that the reader, or me, or anybody else, can use to verify that the facts in it are accurate. If this creation was "funded by the University of Melbourne," can you give us the web URL of a University press release about the grant, or something like that? What was the University's reason for funding it? And I'd strongly suggest that if you want the article to be kept, you should give us some evidence that the Hibbit is famous. Has it been mentioned in a Melbourne newspaper? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless I see some verifiability. I smell a hoax.--Isotope23 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not patent nonsense (alas), but an almost certain hoax. Delete with extreme prejudice unless Slimy earthworm can bust out some solid verification. Lord Bob 19:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. As an Australian, I have never heard of it and it isn't on any comics page of any major Australian newspaper. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more hoaxing. Dottore So 07:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hywel Morgan[edit]

Allegedly an 18 year old student and poker player who doesn't like smoke. Marginal assertion of notablity in that he won a small tournament, so not speedied. Your opinion?

  • Delete Fawcett5 18:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under A7. --Durin 18:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fold nn poker player.--CastAStone 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least it isn't another nn-bio about a college grad with a job... Mr. Morgan hasn't graduated or been employed yet. Give him his 5 days of infamy before his non-notability catches up with him.--Isotope23 18:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who? I'm fine with this guy if he had achieved some other form of poker success. My career winnings aren't far off this, but I didn't create an entry about myself! Essexmutant 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double Down and Delete Dottore So 07:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 20:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muir's razor[edit]

Idiocy. Also, neologism. DS 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity. brilliantly stupid. ----sp00n17:talk 02:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 25 google hits. Punkmorten 19:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is such a common thing that I think people need to know about it.--StephenJMuir 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You, apparently as the "Muir" whom coined the phrase, are in no position to write an encyclopedic NPOV article about it, even if it were notable. We wouldn't allow Tiger Woods to write an article about himself, either. --Agamemnon2 11:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom (add "vanity" to the list). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, it was me that coined the phrase, but I did not write the original article, nor did I ask anybody else to. StephenJMuir 17:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to sound over-sceptical, but you and the anon who created the article appeared at the same time, and have edited little else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sigh. I didn't really want to get drawn into this, but I created the article. You have been using Occam's razor rather than Muir's razor :) D McCanney 22:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zycow[edit]

non-notable webcomic. DS 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. See here for my general views on this. -- SCZenz 17:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per the author's request. -Splashtalk 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spicewood[edit]

A lovely fairy tale, but wikipedia has no place for this. Nice try though. BorgQueen 18:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is another one... "Once upon a time I voted to Delete some patent nonsense". I will admit the part about the baby sandwiches made me laugh though.--Isotope23 19:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can delete it if you want (and you definitely should)... but I was looking up what rootbeer was made of (because who knows that?) and spicewood sounded like it was probably a fake thing anyway... you've got to admit it's funny... sorry, it won't happen again. I had to write an article that my friends could look up. I'll write a real article next time. Sorry and thanks for the fun

    • I've speedied this as CSD:G7 per the author's comments above (verified IP of comments matches article's author).--Isotope23 20:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 07:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head browsing[edit]

Browsing game to find sites using random characters. Deletable cos original research but definitely a candidate for speedy to BJAODN. -- RHaworth 18:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Don't use any part of your wanger..." OK. This is why drugs are bad, children. Delete. No CSD met in my opinion.--CastAStone 18:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, the article definately needs editing, but I don't think deletion is warranted. The game appears orignal, as far as I can see, but perhaps merging might be an option. Any ideas? Delta Seven 00:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (actually 81.103.136.218 according to edit history. Uncle G 03:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • 81.103.136.218, in saying that "the game appears original", ironically puts xyr finger on exactly the problem with this article. The article cites no sources, and I can locate no sources describing this game. The existence of any such game is unverifiable. 81.103.136.218's and 213.249.155.233's modifications to the article to change one of the rules, without citing a source for the modified versions of the rule, also imply that this is simply made up from whole cloth. As RHaworth says, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise (and, indeed, as a free wiki host for constructing the rules for) a newly invented game. Wikipedia is neither an advertising billboard nor a free wiki host. It's an encyclopaedia. The author should use xyr own web site for this sort of thing. Delete. Uncle G 03:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost nonsensical -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Uncle G said. Dottore So 07:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • gtyhvf ... sorry, meant delete - tried to type it with my forehead, didn't work.  BD2412 talk 14:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. hey, that's gtyhvf.co.uk to you, buster!!! MCB 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (monty python voice) 'tis a silly game. Alf melmac 13:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 07:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our Home Planet[edit]

A non notable webcomic with a lot of crufty information in, found here. Alexa gives back a ranking of over 1 million for its main site, and no data for all other mirrors. A google search for "our home planet" webcomic, gives just over 60 links, and there I found no assertion of notability on Google. As of writing, there is no version of this at comixPedia, where it belongs. - Hahnchen 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • nn. Delete. - --CastAStone 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you people are going to continue using the useless and easily exploitable Alexa site to measure popularity, I'll never cease to question the competence of the Webcomics Wikipedia Staff. Also remember the comic is weekly and its statistics won't be as high as comics that update every single day. The comic has been online almost 4 years and has built up one of the larger archives compared to most weekly comics. Despite what Alexa tells you, GD is hardly an unknown, and even runs one of the most popular Oekaki sites online. He is more hard-working and knowledgable than most of the artists that are considered "noteable" on Wikipedia. --SuperHappy 23:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is Special:Contributions/SuperHappy's 17th edit.
Excuse me for having a life outside Wikipedia, douchebag.
I can vouch that User:SuperHappy isn't a sock. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless wikipedia is too serious for webcomics altogether. Which does not seem to be the case... Agreed on the irrelevance of Alexa ratings. It seems to me the deletion request is motivated by subjective dislike for the subject matter. --Komikksu 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is Special:Contributions/Komikksu's first edit.
  • Keep Meets Proposal B, and agreed about Alexa. -Abe Dashiell 18:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Abe Dashiell. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Proposal B is totally out of order. What sort of notability is there here? Are we saying Wikipedia is a place where every comic which has been around for over 100 strips gains an article? What about bar room bands who have been around for a while. What about bloggers with 500 posts? Longevity as people seem to claim here, is not an instant claim to fame. Has this strip been mentioned anywhere outside the webcomic community? Has it received critical feedback and reviews from other respected journals/publications/magazines? Proposal B, just claims that if a webcomic exists, then it warrants an article. And people are agreeing? People have been attacking me from nominating webcomics, because of a personal dislike? This is totally incorrect, I was just pretty shocked when I saw the List of webcomics article at the amount of cruft that had been let in, which would have been deleted if it were any other category. Alexa is not definitive, that is easy to see, but to have a rank of over 1 million is pretty poor. Any reasonably popular webcomic would have a ranking a lot higher. With non webcomic websites, anything over 1 million would be deleted. How is this webcomic more notable than Fleetwood Back, a Fleetwood Mac tribute band, who play local venues in Scarborough? It's time we changed the webcomic guidelines in line with other Wikipedia guidelines. - Hahnchen 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hahnchen, just because you haven't heard of GD or Our Home Planet in whatever little retarded circle of webcomics YOU pay attention to doesn't mean they're unimportant. And I find it really hard to believe that your opinion of Our Home Planet has nothing to do with this nomination. If Proposal B is going to be ignored from now on, throw Proposal A out to, for being completely USELESS. You're not getting the picture here. Alexa is not even a REMOTELY good source to measure website readership. Seeing you obsessively stick to it, despite a great number of people telling you why you shouldn't, makes you look like an ignorant little brat. INCIDENTALLY, GD recently changed its domain name to one Alexa isn't even tracking yet, which would make whatever number you're seeing even more wildly innacurate than normal. But since you seem to be ignoring every argument against you, it doesn't matter. The webcomic listing won't be fixed until it represents your narrow view of what's important.
      • Come to think of it, what webcomics DO you read, Hahnchen? If your answer is "just Penny Arcade and Ctrl-Alt-Del", please do us all a favor and get out. --SuperHappy 00:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi SuperHappy, I at least read a bunch of webcomics, including some of yours. That doesn't mean I think it's the purpose of this encyclopedia to list every webcomic in existence. We're trying to discuss the inclusion criteria on WP:COMIC and come to some consensus, but swearing at someone who's trying to maintain some uniform standard of notability for all wikipedia articles (not just webcomics) isn't going to help. -- SCZenz 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Haha... Fine, fine... swears have been edited. But let it be known that Hahnchen clearly knows nothing about webcomics, and seeing him beng allowed to assert so much authority on them is puzzling, to say the least. --SuperHappy 03:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think I understand why this debate is so divisive, and I'm trying to work to resolve it. I've written you a note about it on your talk page, SuperHappy. -- SCZenz 03:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow Superhappy, thanks for the character assassination. What does it matter what I read, what I eat and what I like? You have asserted no mention of notability anywhere in your arguments, apart from the size of its archive, and that GD is a hardworking guy. You've got the argument the wrong way round, I do not read Our Home Planet, but that is NOT the reason I nominated it. There are so many bands that I have never heard of or never listened to, and yet if theres a verifiable assertion of notability, I would not delete it. What the argument should be, is "Just because you're a fan of the comic, is that the reason it should be kept?" - Hahnchen 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All three criteria listed in the helpful template above are far too lenient. Bottom line is, there's no evidence presented that this comic is notable. -- SCZenz 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet any reasonable standards for notability. -Sean Curtin 19:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some proponent can reasonably explain why this subject matters and has truly touched people somehow. Peter S. 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets all three listed proposals with new domain. Deleting this article is less efficient than it is pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.82.254 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -- SCZenz 16:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A webcomic has no more automatic claim to notability than any other random website; and certainly a random website like this would need more than just extended existance and continuous updates to be notable. --Aquillion 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until such time as WikiProject Webcomics decides to develop guidelines that include independent verification of a webcomics importance pages like this should be treated as just another website. --Allen3 talk 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic topic. No claim to notability. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a webcomic with no claim to notability. I've removed {{webcomic notability}}, as it's currently a summary of three proposed guidelines, meaning that there's not yet any consensus supporting them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely non-notable. Pokemon and high schools are giants of modern culture compared to this. Ashibaka (tock) 23:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Juvenile. Especially coming from someone whose crowning achievement is writing the entry for Cardcaptor Sakura.
      • And when this webcomic is as newsworthy or influential as Cardcaptor Sakura, it will merit a Wikipedia article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should have noted the quote on the bottom of my userpage: Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest ;-) --fuddlemark Ashibaka (tock) 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dragonfiend 03:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 18:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buddies in Big Places[edit]

WWW Webcomics notability and inclusion proposed guidelines WWW

The following ideas have been proposed by three people as possible guidelines for whether a webcomic is encyclopedic.

  • Proposal A:
  • Proposal B:
  1. A webcomic must be on the web and actively producing strips for a minimum of 33 weeks before being considered for Wikipedia.
  2. A webcomic must have at least 100 strips in its archive before being considered for Wikipedia.
  3. Someone other than the webcartoonist needs to actually write and develop the article in question.
  • Proposal C:
    • 500 comics or 3 years running.

A webcomic, found here. Webcomics use the internet as their only means of distribution, so if they are popular, they should have a reasonable alexa rank. This one, has none. A google search shows up about 90 links, none of which show this webcomic to be any more notable than a run of the mill website. Just because the comic has lasted a few years and has compiled many strips, does not mean it is notable, no matter what WP:COMIC might say. - Hahnchen 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is a relisting. The afd got deformed when the listing got blanked, probably due to ignorance of an edit conflict. I've only noticed now, so here it is again. - Hahnchen 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree with Hanchen's assessment of WP:COMIC. It meets Proposal B, therefore IMHO sufficient for inclusion. Alexa is definitely not a persuasive argument for deletion. -Abe Dashiell 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proposal B. Alexa is frankly too narrowly focused to be relevant. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen this linked to from several other comics over the years, so it can't be that non-notable, as I don't read too many comics... Bushytails 06:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To re-use CyberSkull's wording, proposal B is frankly too lenient to be relevant. Alexa is certainly too narrow too, so I'll be happy to change my vote if I see some other assertion of notability. -- SCZenz 19:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet any reasonable notability guidelines. -Sean Curtin 19:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simple extended existance does not make a website notable. --Aquillion 22:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Until such time as WikiProject Webcomics decides to develop guidelines that include independent verification of a webcomics importance pages like this should be treated as just another website. --Allen3 talk 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Homonid[edit]

Non-notable and a bit crufty around the edges. Delete. Okay, well, still a bit crufty, but I didn't know the article's name was a misspelling. Redirect --Jacquelyn Marie 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete does not meet minimum standards, notability not made clear --Isolani 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's title is misspelled, and should be Alien Hominid. A google for the correct title returns a mega-truckload of hits. (Well, >500,000). I have no idea on the criteria for inclusion for computer games so, other than noting it should be moved if retained, abstain for now. Sliggy 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alien Hominid. Kappa 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Yes, good idea. Cough. Redirect. Sliggy 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not 'my' idea of an alien hominid! Redirect Alf melmac 13:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Alien Hominid Rhetoricalwater 23:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The doo rag nelsons[edit]

NN "joke" band. -HX 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pyramids (music)[edit]

Delete as a hoax. IP that created this (144.132.45.148) has created several pages today and appears to be the IP of Slimy earthworm. Information in this article is completely unverifiable and even if it was the band would not meet WP:MUSIC. I considered listing this speedy for CSD:G3 page creation vandalism as all pages created by Slimy earthworm and 144.132.45.148 today contain unverifiable info (barring a late edit done to the Stephen Silvapulle page to add some verifible info that is irrelevant to the subject's notability claims.--Isotope23 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google on various search terms came up empty (for instance, zero hits on "Kloukinis". -- Curps 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's Rocket 2[edit]

A description of a "phony episode" of SpongeBob SquarePants. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If by "phony episode" is meant "non-notable fan-fiction" then Delete. Thue | talk 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confabulator[edit]

Transwiki dicdef to wiktionary.--Isotope23 19:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense. Thue | talk 20:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lé Mime[edit]

Completely nonsensical. Sounds like a rant, thoroughly non-encyclopedic. Also, there shouldn't be an accent on the letter "E". 216.191.200.1 20:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to my mind that's a nonsense speedy delete. Keithlard 20:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as contextless nonsense.--Isotope23 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Request pulled by submitter (myself) after better suggestion by User:Kewp. Wikibofh 14:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Post Pattern & Wheel pass[edit]

Delete: I've taken this information and integrated it into American football strategy. I don't see how this can ever be more than a stub, or a part of a separate article on passing plays if that section gets too large Wikibofh 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not just redirect Post Pattern to American football strategy? why put it on AFD?--Kewp (t) 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good question. Because I didn't think about it.  :) I just did wheel pass too. If no one has objections I will just do the redirects and then request this be closed. Wikibofh 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please close AfD: Per conversation here I have converted both of these into redirects. No information was lost when I merged the information into the article and I don't think this AfD is required anymore. Wikibofh 22:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are dozens of types of football plays. If we redirect all of them to American football strategy, the article will become 500K long. The post pattern, if not the wheel pass, could be made into a full article with a description of the route, a diagram, the fact that Paul Warfield was famous for running it, etc. I don't want to set a precedent that football plays are not to be included. -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would argue that if it gets to that point we would split it off into something like American football pass plays as a seperate article referenced from the main, but each of these individual plays is unlikely to ever be notable enough for its own article. Wikibofh 03:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a redirect doesn't add any length to the article at all, however, Wikibofh already merged the material to American football strategy before s/he posted the article to AFD. My suggestion was to not delete Post Pattern but change the contents into a redirect.--Kewp (t) 12:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have converted them to redirects. Wikibofh 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (ps: he :)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwood University[edit]

I got through the first 6 words of this article before the alarm bells become too load and I turned to google: "Ashwood University is a fully recognized university". A quick google search turns up [28], [29] and [30], confirming my suspicion. Delete, unless somebody want to write an accurate article exposing the scam. Thue | talk 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diploma mill. --Kewp (t) 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Life Experience Degree Dlyons493 Talk 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pilatus's rewrite which provides factual information. For me the key question is now whether this objectionable orgaisation is sufficiently notable or not. On balance I think it probably is. Just being objectionable isn't an adeqaute reason to delete it. Dlyons493 Talk 07:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current content, and recreate as a redirect to Diploma mill. It's a pity that delete, redirect and salt the earth isn't an available option. Sliggy 20:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable degree granting diploma mill which garners over 14-thousand hits on Google. [31] This should be cleaned up and refactored, not erased. Silensor 21:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a diploma mill that sells highly dubious examination certificates over the internet. Why is the number of Google hits relevant? Sliggy 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a first indication of the size of the scam. We are not judging if it's reprehensible to sell "degrees in life experience", our job is to judge if they are well-known for doing so. Note: Saint Regis University, notorious for having provided services to a bunch of Georgia teachers some time ago has some 350 unique Google hits. This specimen clocks up about 185. Pilatus 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite, having neutral and accurate articles on these diploma mills is a useful public service. - SimonP 21:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. Only universities that educate should have articles. Gazpacho 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a particularly notable example of a diploma mill --Carnildo 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please silensor is right we should fix this to be more accurate not erase it that makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, sorry. On this I take a directly confrontational line. I cannot imagine any circumstances when an organisation like this, essentially stealing disadvantaged individuals' money, is worth an article. The subject of this article has nothing to do with education, and is simply heartless profiteering. Furthermore, with apologies, I am stunned into disbelief by the keep votes. Sliggy 00:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "List of diploma mills" "List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning" exists and has a fair amount of bluelinks. Why anyone would vote keep for the article in its present form is beyond me, though. Pilatus 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: Article has been rewritten Pilatus 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Keep. I think that, on reflection (and reading through the arguments posted here), Wikipedia is improved by Pilatus' excellent NPOV rewrite. It allows readers to rapidly discern the fucking disgusting scam service that this institution provides. Sorry for losing my temper. Sliggy 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment we don't have articles only on good things at WP. Something being evil is not a valid deletion criterion. It would be easy to think of a dozen other scams which have legitimate WP articles. No vote —Wahoofive (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason we keep International Star Registry. -- Mwalcoff 02:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an Internet-based scam may have a high number of search results, but it doesn't make it notable. -- Kjkolb 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Redirect, or Merge not notable scam Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's the problem that, while the scam seems obvious, we lack objective independent sources of information to talk about it here. Also, the "Ashwood University" is not a distinct entity. It could be one of countless names by a single organization. Even if that underlying organization warrants an article (I can't say), we can't write such an article unless such an organization is exposed in a documented, publicized, and verifiable manner. --rob 06:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pilatus's rewrite as a community service. If someone comes across one of their ads, and comes here to get more information, they should know what they're getting themselves in for. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a poser. I am in agreement with the above, since Pilatus' NPOV scourging rewrite is a good source that this is a totally sham institution. OTOH, caveat emptor is not grounds for notability. So even though I like the rewrite, I still think this fails the notability test which is the guiding principle for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Keep Red King's point is well-taken. Dottore So 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angr. Xoloz 10:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angr. What's the point of a List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning if there can't also be articles exposing each scam. For example, the wiki article on Breyer State University gets near top billing on Google, helping to advise prospective students and employers that it would be cheaper to print their own mock degree certificates. These diploma mills are notable becuase of what they are not, rather than becuase of what they are. --Red King 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rewrite by Pilatus makes it clear what sort of "university" this actually is. --GraemeL (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mwalcoff; the analogy to International Star Registry is a good one. MCB 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Crypticfirefly 05:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am tired of justifying. So i'll simply say keep. --Oblivious 13:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as Ashwood University (diploma mill) and create redirect; if indeed it is not an university, the original title is misleading. --Vsion 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diploma mills are inherently notable. Especially those that have been featured in documentaries.--Nicodemus75 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Another fine job. Unfocused 06:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Castlefilms (2005)[edit]

Amature filming company set up in 2005. Does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, so should be deleted. Thue | talk 20:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DElete. Ad. Vegaswikian 05:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 11:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. -- Kjkolb 12:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle parkour[edit]

This term gets 309 google hits, and is probably non-notable. Thue | talk 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added merge notification with Fspk, so that when this article is deleted, the other can be deleted as well. -- ReyBrujo 14:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to Fspk, Fresstyle parkour and Fspk are the same as Yamakasi, so maybe it is better to delete and redirect to it (even if it is a stub). -- ReyBrujo 17:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caito's Rule[edit]

  • Delete - Not notable Vanity/advert with no encyclopedic value -Tεxτurε 20:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, vanity and not notable. --GraemeL (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Widely accepted nomenclature through long-standing internet community - BobM59[[User:BobM59|]] 13:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Widely accepted nomenclature through long-standing internet community. Has value as new language of pop culture. -antagonist77
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Seemore[edit]

Ad/vanity for non-notable "natural big-bust amateur web porn star" (Google lists only 3,840 pages). tregoweth 20:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 20:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, would like to see this article referenced beyond "comedepot.com". Hall Monitor 21:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, she doesn't seem to be a notable porn star. She just has a site and links from other porn sites and spam pages. -- Kjkolb 03:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, most other articles from the porn star list have similar sources. Werner, 7.Oct. 2005
  • Delete per Tregoweth. -- DS1953 04:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parbati River(MP)[edit]

This is a page left over from the disambiguation process at Parbati River. The primary article for this river (Parbati River (Madhya Pradesh) is the moved version of the original Parbati River article (rather than this recreated one) to preserve GFDL credit. This copy is now superfluous. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect harmlessless without bringing to Afd. Kappa 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case it will end up on RFD. It'sThe title is poorly formatted, there are no incoming links... why keep anything? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's harmless. Kappa 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seeing as its here now. Dlyons493 Talk 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might as well, since it's been listed. Dottore So 07:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Wikibofh 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullying[edit]

Hmmm...where to start. (First editor) is a non-notable educator (at a non-notable institution) with co-authorship of 4 papers to his name. (Second editor) appears to have a little more notability than his colleague. The whole issue smacks of dicdef, original research and postmodern jibberjabber that professional professors throw around when their tenure is threatened. Delete or come up with some convincing prose that demonstrates clearly the how and why of bullying via the internet and why it is a bigger deal than actual physical violence. Eddie.willers 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • {Rejoinder} Despite the fact that Mr. Willers provided absolutely no constructive feedback regarding this project, I feel that he has contributed immeasurably, insofar as his comments represent a good example of one form of cyberbullying – that is, groundless, unqualified, and clearly inept criticism of another’s work. I will not respond to the personal attack, except for thanking him for visiting our site. I will, however, continue to contribute to the development of Wikipedia and the cyberbullying article specifically as this is an area of interest. Non-notable educator 22:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Non-Notable Educator. Sir, I am saddened by your apparent inability to maintain a clear focus on the purpose of this forum. An AFD Nomination is not required to provide 'constructive feedback', as the process calls for contributory votes from other users. Although, as you assert, and to which I shall admit, my criticism is somewhat 'groundless, unqualified, and clearly inept', at no point does my nomination veer in to the realms of personal attack (aka 'cyberbullying') and to suggest that it does is disingenuous, to say the least. I maintain that you have signally failed in your article to clearly set forth a difference between actual physical intimidation in the real world and its electronic percieved equivalent.
  • Keep/Expand/Cleanup Cyber bullying (as two words) has received mainstream media attention internationally as a concept w/r/t kids in chat rooms, and using SMS and IM. Apparently it's more prevalent than in-person bullying due to anonymity the web provides. Here are a few media mentions: Louisiana TV station, CBS News, CBC backgrounder, Wired Safety article Maybe redirect to Cyber bullying since that's how it's usually written? Jessamyn 23:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I have changed this to a web stub and provided references. User Jessamyn has listed others with potential. This is a significant issue regarding technology use by children and young people. Should be renamed as Cyber bullying.Capitalistroadster 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jessamyn. The article has a lot of potential. Saberwyn 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per above. -- Kjkolb 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep echoing above. Dottore So 07:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These newstories made CNN and ABC, at least, not to mention my local paper. Xoloz 10:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Cyber bullying Alf melmac 12:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep newsmaking --JAranda | yeah 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Private Butcher 22:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If that link is an explanation of your keep vote, it is not transparent to me. Jkelly 23:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd suggest that it might be better titled Cyber bullying, with a preserved redirect. Jkelly 23:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!!! I CREATED THIS ARTICLE, I DID NOT MAKE UP THIS SUBJECT, THE PORTMANTEAU IS MENTIONED ON MANY WEBSITES AND IT ISN'T EVEN THAT BIG OF A "HOG" ON THE WIKIPEDIA DATABASE ANYWAY.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List author[edit]

What seems like a non-notable newspaper writer. The book is ranked #2,194,184 on amazon, and is published through the vanity press Xlibris Thue | talk 21:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nonsensical title, non-notable writer. -R. fiend 06:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salva Me[edit]

Lots of promotion in this band article, but the article doesn't seem to mention any hard notability. No allmusic.com entry, and the article mentions no produced records. Thue | talk 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if the article is to be believed then the tour satisfies point #2 of WP:MUSIC (I think). Mallocks 00:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, Thanks much. I am not a copywriter, so if anyone can jazz it up, it would be appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadez1971 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2005
  • Delete. Don't see anything that establishes them as anything but some local band. Only a self-released album, and a dubious claim of being a "national touring group" (bands like this, when they tour, generally play small gigs and lose alot of money; maybe they play weddings?). All their reference links are to their homepage. claims to passing WP:MUSIC seem unverified. -R. fiend 23:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

ESDAC[edit]

Dyslexia rules, KO? ;-) Delete for correctness. Eddie.willers 21:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Is this trying to be a disambig page with no links? The computer might be notable, but there's no info, and I doubt a prayer group passes notability tests. -R. fiend 23:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowsmith Research[edit]

This article appears to be advertising for Arrowsmith Research Company and was probably written by same. It is written from the point of view of the company ("Our products are used throughout the chip design process from architectural conception through silicon tapeout.") in a tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There are ten links to the OpenAccess article, which it is claimed is used by Arrowsmith Research, and a great deal of text concerning OpenAccess which resembles ad copy. For example: "IC CAD engineers spend an inordinate amount of time integrating them with thousands of lines of translator code. The resulting flows are fragile and error-prone. As well, they are inefficient and result in longer IC design cycle times. Engineered for industry-wide interoperability, the OpenAccess database allows users to construct flows incorporating design tools from multiple sources to best suit their needs."

The WP:NOT page states that "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine" and "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." This article is not written in an unbiased style, it does not link to any articles other than OpenAccess and EDA, and is written in a first person voice from Arrowsmith Research's point of view.

201.25.233.227 21:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That link is a WP mirror complete with GFDL cite at the bottom of the page. --GraemeL (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it is - was almost illegible in my browser! Just Delete Dlyons493 Talk 19:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Kjkolb 12:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect Wikibofh 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhīd[edit]

dictdef. Correct, interesting, but bdictdef. Dlyons493 Talk 21:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In its present form, it's a definite transwiki candidate, but I suspect it could be kept and expanded into a quite interesting article, especially given its stated importance within the Islamic faith. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tawhīd, which seems to be about the same concept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 22:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dangerous Man[edit]

Probably non-notable, with 129 google hits for Jamie Andrew Watkins-Morris. No specific and verifyable claims of notability in the article. Thue | talk 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably notable, with many more hits for 'The Dangerous Man' on Google, as this is the name as to which Jamie Andrew Watkins-Morris uses, so there will be very few for his real name User:james.w03 | talk 22:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete nn. Note User:james.w03 is the article's creator. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The sheer hubris of this made me laugh. Totally nn, and ridiculous vanity page with no assertion (other than I wrote some crap in a blog that pissed off my 4 readers) that would prevent it from being speedily deleted. Dottore So 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Delete it then. Just a laugh that people are taking way too serious User:james.w03 | talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg G. Scott[edit]

Probable hoax. From the author of Moo point andOliver Stevens Dlyons493 Talk 22:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Oddly, not a single Google hit for a famous physicist! MCB 01:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-verified, unless reference is given --Vsion 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I userfied it. Woohookitty 11:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Tugman[edit]

Delete- Appears to be non-notable vanity page. Not listed in IMDB. User:Rick Tugman is a registered user, but this page is all he has contributed to so far. Rick, please continue to contribute, but move this to your user page. MakeRocketGoNow 22:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. -R. fiend 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected. -R. fiend 22:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silty[edit]

dicdef Trovatore 22:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just a simple redirect to Silt? Vsmith 22:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's probably the right answer. --Trovatore 22:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Vsmith 23:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted. May have been a copyvio (though I'm not sure definitions can be copyrighted), but in any case, it's a dicdef, with no votes to keep. -R. fiend 22:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stilted[edit]

dicdef Trovatore 22:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to wiktionary --Trovatore 22:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been said many times before: good dictionary entries are hard to write. People who can write good dictionary entries but somehow submit them to the encyclopedia instead of the dictionary are exceedingly rare. Always google good dictionary entries before trying to transwiki them, since, like this one, most are copyvios. [33] —Cryptic (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Ng[edit]

This person seems to be famous, have achievements, and was interviewed in a newspaper. Not clear why though. The way the article stands, this person does not look notable, so I would vote to

  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At least for the moment. If the article could be lengthened to better explain who the person is, and what his claim to fame is, I might change to keep. bjelleklang 23:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 11:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a poorly done vanity page. This guy's claim to fame was that he was interviewed in the paper (as stated in the article). He lived in Hong Kong, but apparently has since moved to somewhere in the U.S. in 2002 (Per earlier version of wiki article Heng Fa Chuen He has a couple of web pages, neither of which support the claims in the article: free host page and photo gallery page. More telling, perhaps, is that I found with an Altavista search that he was associated with the Chemistry Club at Wootton H.S. in Maryland last year. (Consistent with the chemistry info found on the web page, so I think it is the same person.) Perhaps a teacher at the school? Nope. Was on the honor roll in July 2005. Crypticfirefly 05:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact, user:Olivier had already put this article up for VfD once before (see edit history on June 12, 2005), but user:69.140.103.233 (who I believe is Iman Ng himself) removed the VfD notice the day after. - Hinto 15:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Fischetti[edit]

Hoax. CDC (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Marskell 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Bad Faith, G3. --CastAStone 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, which is not a speedy deletion criteria. It might be an extremely borderline G3, but so utterly so that I wouldn't click the link for it (even if I could). Lord Bob 00:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete garbage, hoax, -- Malo 00:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for utterly ridiculous and incoherent hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 11:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 18:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gassmann[edit]

Hoax. CDC (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as hoax. Marskell 23:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Bad Faith; G3. --CastAStone 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Lord Bob 00:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete garbage, hoax, -- Malo 00:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, and more. --Agamemnon2 11:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete after merging all contents in Claudio Chiappucci. Merging histories would leave a mess because the edit histories overlap. Personal remark: I would have thought we had a better article on Chiappucci. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chioccioli[edit]

illegible Trovatore 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a machine translation of some Italian text about a cyclist named Franco Chioccioli. It's not from Italian Wikipedia, which doesn't have an article on him, so I don't know where the original came from. The machine translation is virtually useless; unless someone wants to write a real article, the page should be deleted. --Trovatore 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sppedy Delete Definate G1 - its nonsensical in its current form. Possible A7 as well, i cant tell because it's impossible to read. --CastAStone 23:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So I took a shot at rendering as much as I could. I had to guess in some spots, and there was some stuff I just had no idea about. (I do speak Italian; it would have been easier to translate the actual original.) It's still unsourced and as far as I know unverified, so unless someone can pick up where I left off, I still say 'delete. But it's getting closer. --Trovatore 02:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the original; it's at [34]. I think my translation is pretty accurate, though I couldn't think of a word that renders vezzosamente, so I just left it out (it was more or less a swipe at the French anyway). The language problem is fixed now, but there's still a the problem of sourcing/verifying the material. Also I don't know why the article is called "Chioccioli" when it's about Chiappucci, but that's a lesser problem (can easily be moved). --Trovatore 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, I think. It does need to be sourced, but so do lots of pages that we aren't deleting. --Trovatore 02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Claudio Chiappucci, including history, then delete the redirect. Why should Chioccioli redirect to Chiappucci? --Trovatore 03:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trovatore has done a great job. Agree with his suggestion above. Dottore So 07:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 18:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on final fantasy[edit]

Non-notable forum/fansite, very few relevant Google hits.--Sean Jelly Baby? 23:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Alexa ranking in the 115k range, but the forums appear to have over 11k members. --GraemeL (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although the site's been around for a very long time (and I used to be a member there...), it's simply a message board, and its Alexa rating is mediocre... -- Grev -- Talk 17:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 18:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Scherer[edit]

Vanity page. Some fictional elements. (ninja cia agent?) Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. --GraemeL (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless better references are given, at present the content cannot be verified. --Vsion 05:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 18:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Pug Day[edit]

Description sounds bogus and can't find any references on the web anywhere. Delete. Elf | Talk 23:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real holiday celebrated by approximately 38 people at this time in three countries. It will continue to grow. (unsigned, posted by User:68.40.176.58)

Can you provide some references that show it to be real (and by real that means more than 38 people--)? (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Obscure_topics)Elf | Talk 23:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable - 38 people in 3 countries? Maybe if the popularity takes off, it can be added, but until then, no. - Trysha (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 18:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Subramanian[edit]

Vanity, non-notable person. Alkivar 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Nandikeswara. -R. fiend 17:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanthikesvaran[edit]

Seems like a direct copy of Shiva with the word Śiva replaced with Nanthikesvaran. No hits on Google for 'Nanthikesvaran'

  • Delete per nomination. - Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No google + direct copy = goodbye! Keresaspa 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try googling for 'Nandikeswara' with either 'bull' or 'siva'/'shiva'. Tintin 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nandi Bull. Nanthikeswaran is another name for Nandi. Tintin 21:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Girlpunk[edit]

Website seems fairly obscure; Alexa ranking is 747,857. The article is short, poorly written, and unformatted, too, so we don't have to worry about deleting anybody's masterpiece. Joel7687 23:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Barney Bunch[edit]

Non-notable, self published vanity CambridgeBayWeather 23:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity/nn gameclancruft. MCB 02:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, produces non-notable flash movies. -- Kjkolb 12:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Anatomy[edit]

Non-notable and vanity CambridgeBayWeather 23:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, no albums released, one without label planned for 2006. Mallocks 23:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy does not attempt to establish notability. -DDerby-(talk) 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lazlo Episode Original Plots[edit]

Camp Lazlo is an animated series created by Joe Murray and airing on Cartoon Network. But do we need also a Camp Lazlo Episode Original Plots, as a separte list of all epizodes, and from there links to articles containing the plots of the epizodes themselves? Wikipedia is not paper, but does an animated series deserve more than just an article about it? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generally speaking we keep episodes of shows on which there are parent articles, if someone bothers to write them. Xoloz 10:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Oleg Alexandrov. Xoloz, did you think that this was an episode? -- Kjkolb 12:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, thanks for asking, though. :) I consider this an episode list, a super-order of the episode type, keep-worthy as long as the main show has an article, and every episode isn't better explained on its own. Xoloz 12:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wittbeat[edit]

Semi-coherent entry about a non-notable website. Google reports knowing of no links to wittbeat.com, so even if article could be recovered, it shouldn't be. CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather 00:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes little or no sense. The two 'See Also' words doesn't exist as articles either, and google only returns 4 resultpages on a search for Wittbeat....which is even less than a search on me! And I haven't done anything notable (yet).bjelleklang 00:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skycutting[edit]

Neologism, non-notable. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wittbeat. CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 17:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyball[edit]

Non-notable in this context. Although Goolge has several references to Bodyball, none of them seem to apply to this format. It usually refers to the large (oversize) ball. Could be rewritten if someone had the proper information CambridgeBayWeather 00:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it really is a game, i heard mention of it in conversation and searched to try and find out more about it. Don't delete it - it was very helpful to me.

  • Delete. Not notable - game created "in 2005" per article itself. -- DS1953 04:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is unsourced, and created "in 2005" is a patent admission of non-notability. Quale 04:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_6&oldid=1081093568"