Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

Purge server cache

December 5[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heide Mann[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in late 1970, and Google appears to have nothing ("Heidi Mann" as this article details is lost in the background noise, "Heidi Mann" + penthouse gives 9 sites, each of which can be summed up as "This is the October 1970 issue of Penthouse. Heidi Mann is on the cover.") Saberwyn 00:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - whilst I might consider "Pet of the Year" as possibly a claim to notoriety, "Pet of the Month" is not. They usually have all of what 3 models per month, and so it just means that she beat the other 2. Its not a contest that she's won, and is really just a way of advertising for the magazine. Not notable. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately this is all we seem to know about her is a one-line substub and a cover of the relevant edition. Unless there is more to be said, delete. BTW, have you checked for "Heide Mann" to see if that comes up with more info. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you mean in Google, I get 173 total results for "Heide Mann, of which 52 are unique. Skimming through the first page, I find it is dominated by the genealogy of a French surname, authors of computing/programming works and theories, and several different people whose surname is either 'Heide-Mann' or 'Heidemann'. I also get one hit for Wikipedia where the name is mentioned on a list of Penthouse Pets. Nothing beyond 'she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse' for this girl. Saberwyn 00:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just had a look at List of Penthouse Pets. I am so removing all those red links!! - Saberwyn 00:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. worthawholebean talkcontribs 01:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Will tag as such. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable person, famous enough to grace a cover of a VERY VERY WIDELY purchased magazine, if we can have Pokecards (which are even less notable IMO) I see no reason she cant stay. Also this is not a valid speedy IMO... let the AFD run its course.  ALKIVAR™ 04:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's arguing that she's not an actual person, just that there's no way to get an actual article about her. Also, care to expalin why it's not a valid speedy? --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:CSD:
        1. Very short articles providing little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion. Google may help in determining context, though, and allow for the article's expansion. (emphasis mine) There is enough context to allow expansion...
        2. Unremarkable people. An article about a real person that does not assert their importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. (emphasis mine) as we seem to dispute whether or not she's notable it belongs on AFD.
      • Thats my reasoning anyway proper procedure says list on AFD... you will probably get your wish that it be deleted anyways.  ALKIVAR™ 05:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete About as nn as a centerfold gets... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list of pets she's listed on (and remove the link back to this article. this "article" is a mere factoid and more info about her doesn't seem to be available, which seems to make this a permanent substub. Willing to reconsider if someone can prove it's expandable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm. If the subject meets our inclusion policies and guidelines, as it appears she does, then she needs to be included - but it does not follow that she needs an article of her own, if there is really no scope to expand it at this time. Since there is an appropriate article that already says all there is to say about her, I don't see that anyone loses anything by redirecting this; the redirect means people looking for her will find her, and the main article means people who find her will find her in context. Sounds good to me. — Haeleth Talk 13:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wankercruft non-notable "adult model" (i.e. woman who took her kit off for one verifiable photoshoot) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unlink: Look, I'm old enough to have been through puberty when she was there, and I remember her fondly. She was quite famous for quite a brief period of time. Since she never managed to develop a public career beyond that, there is nothing really to say beyond the context of that shoot. Therefore, there is no way to write an article about her, nor justification for a separate discussion. This is, by the way, exactly the rationale I use for contemporary porn queens and "glamour models" and the like. It isn't that they're not pretty or famous, but rather that they're ephemera. Today's HotBody is tomorrow's Heide Mann. Geogre 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and delink, per Mgm above. Anyone who comes looking for the name should be able to find the sum of information that we have available on this person, which is already there. BD2412 T 19:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. - there's no rule against throwing a couple of magazine cover pics onto the list - this would fall under fair use so long as it's merely a smattering (to show changes over time, perhaps), rather than the whole catalogue. BD2412 T 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mgm and others above. If more info avaliable on her, add into article relavent to her subject. No use in having seperate article. -Refusetobesilenced 23:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and delink per users above. Movementarian 10:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cloka[edit]

Game cruft/neologism/sub-slang Pete.Hurd 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • recommend delete (note IP's colourful history User_talk:66.210.38.254) Pete.Hurd 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cloka" is a typo for "cloak"; [weak] redirect to cloak, as clearly at least one person made the mistake. — Haeleth Talk 00:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Google test reveals that Mgm is right and this isn't as common a typo as I thought it might be. I'd still tend to keep the redirect, because I understand they're cheap, but let me note here that I shan't be at all bothered if the vote goes to "delete" instead. — Haeleth Talk 13:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to cloak. Carioca 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cloak --06:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think redirecting for this specific typo is useful. What next? Apple to appel, green to grene, just because one person couldn't spell? This isn't due to a common typo or some misunderstood grammar or spelling rule. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MacGyverMagic. — JIP | Talk 12:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sub-trivial and with no potential to expand. Oh, alright, redirect to Halo (and then burn that as gamecruft). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia isn't a dictionary and even less a urban dictionary --Mecanismo 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiazhen chen[edit]

Biography of a college junior, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO but not a speedy since it claims notability (e.g. it claims he "sold innovative business communication services to business owners and Fortune 500 companies"). Unfortunately, the verifiable claims don't seem to be notable, and the notable claims don't seem to be verifiable, so... — Haeleth Talk 00:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a resume in paragraph form. Doesn't offer any citations or enough specific information to verify its claims. Durova 04:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Me too! (in place of per nom) --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 06:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. — JIP | Talk 12:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I go to Grinnell College and I know who this guy is. He is not notable. — 132.161.162.95 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete NN vanity page. --Bachrach44 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as Bachrach44 said. --Mecanismo 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that the nominator has taken this to WP:RfD, and all votes have been transferred there. — Haeleth Talk 01:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Chekhov,[edit]

the name with a comma (a typo -- the link (almost certainly) should not have included the comma) was linked to from Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts -- additionally, as that link is no longer relevant, it was removed (rather than simply removing the comma) Alan smithee 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically this should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. But I'll vote delete now, just in case people decide to leave it on AfD. This isn't a likely thing to enter in the search box, so it's of little use as a redirect, unlike most typos. — Haeleth Talk 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are cheap, but I agree with Haeleth on both counts (that this should be deleted and that it probably doesn't belong here). ESkog | Talk 01:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise paper[edit]

This is an article about a non-notable paper manufacurer. I presume it was uploaded by someone who works for the firm as the logo image is described as "our free use logo image". Thryduulf 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. Article creator Jtbobwaysf is in process of spamming several pages with links to this article and his Yoga studios also. Speedy for vandalism. Herostratus 02:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Obvious spam. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Spam? Why is it spam to include your company profile in wikipedia? Also curious that we are not considered notable when they are one of the largest paper suppliers in China. jtbobwaysf 02:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:SPAM may be a good start as well as WP:CORP. If your company is indeed one of the largest in China, this could well be worth including, but we'd need some independant sources to prove that. - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete speedily; give the article creator the rest of the AfD time to come up with sources that we can use to verify that this company has a very large share of the Chinese paper market, because if that's true then we want a (suitably NPOV) article on it. But delete nonetheless iff these sources are not forthcoming. It can always be recreated if evidence is found later on. — Haeleth Talk 13:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: looks a lot like spam at present; China has a large Internet presence (unlike this company). No trace of stock listing at this time, still looking. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently it's nothing more than spam. --Bachrach44 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but will reconsider per Haeleth. Agree with Hirostratus that spammy links like the one added to A4 paper are innapropriate whetever the result of this AfD. AndyJones 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. It IS spam. User jtbobwaysf inserted an egregious link to this article in the technical article A4 paper, and also inserted egrious links to his also-AfD's article It's Yoga in 2 or 3 Yoga articles, and those have been his only contributions so far. Whether or not the company might be notable I don't know, but since this article is WP:SPAM I say delete on sight. Herostratus 18:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Oops I had already voted, sorry. Herostratus[reply]

  • Do Not Delete, Was not trying to spam. Just made some links in areas that are relevant. Did not know that was not allowed. Sorry if I violated the wikipedia TOS. Sunrise Paper is not a public company and do not intend to go public at this time. Is this category only for public companies? What kind of 'indpendent verification' is required here? This seems all quite a bit over the top here. They are listed in DMOZ, paperfiber.com, and are a serious company. They export more than 20,000 Metric Tons per month. (If anyone here is in the paper business they will know what that means.) BTW-This same 'not-notable' objection is coming up for the Its Yoga posting that I put up. They are one of the oldest yoga studios in the USA, and have many itsyoga branded/owned studios around the world, are listed in both DMOZ and yahoo, and have the largest yoga studio in San Francisco. Their guru Larry Schultz is one of the most renowned yoga guru's in the USA. What is the measure of 'notable' for wikipedia? There are many single location yoga studios listed in wikipedia and I even recognize some of them their teachers were certified by Guru Larry. jtbobwaysf 17:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck out the vote portion of the above comment, jtbobwaysf has already voted above. Thryduulf 08:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as per below discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torman, zack[edit]

This appears to be a spoof/attack article, the person doesn't show up on Google, and it was edited by an anonymous IP. Cmdrjameson 00:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm tempted to assume it's an attack page for a real-life Zack Torman currently at a non-notable high school in Bangor, Maine and vote speedy delete, but in the absence of any evidence for that, I guess it's just a plain delete per WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 01:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db-attack - clearly worthy in my view. PJM 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - attack -Meegs 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 06:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per PJM (tagged). Stifle 10:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cisero[edit]

Hoax. No references and cannot find any supporting information via Google or Google News. Did find a Paul Cisero in the IMDB, but it's not this fellow. Considered replacing article with the actor, but actor not significant enough to warrant an article in my mind (though I wouldn't argue if someone else wanted to). -- JLaTondre 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find nothing as well. Urging readers to turn him in is farcical. PJM 01:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax per nomination -Meegs 02:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Durova 04:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vandalism (hoax). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that the nominator has taken this to WP:RfD, and all votes have been transferred. — Haeleth Talk 01:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bard (Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

it only exists because of a (now-fixed) typo (missing right parenthesis) in a link at List of character classes Alan smithee 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically this should have gone to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion (I have left a note on Alan smithee's talk page to explain this). But I'll vote delete now, just in case people decide to leave it on AfD. This isn't a likely thing to enter in the search box, so it's of little use as a redirect, unlike most typos. — Haeleth Talk 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I know, it's early, but this is a very clear case. Friday (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quinlivitarianism[edit]

Joke religion invented in 2005. Needless to say, Google's never heard of it. Does it fail WP:V more than it fails WP:NOR? Could it be a hoax, or perhaps even silly vandalism? You, dear voter, may decide. As for me, I say we should risk the wrath of Quinlivit and delete. — Haeleth Talk 01:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Vandal hoax. It was just a general delete until all the scribbling above. Geogre 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


4IM[edit]

This page would appear to be vanity for an organisation - notice a large majority of edits have been made by a user who shares a username with the subject of the article. The organisation has no hits on the first few pages of google results for both internation and UK searches. Neo 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like they're running a political campaign. --Aucaman 02:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable political movements are not run on Bravehost, generally. Ashibaka tock 06:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - just as you don't like the page doesn't mean its okay to vandalise it. I've reverted your edits. --Neo 02:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That actually has a lot of precedent on AfD, but I won't do it again. sry. Ashibaka tock 01:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very odd. Independence for England? The organization, designed to be an umbrella for a bunch of groups that don't like each other, does not appear to have succeeded in its mission to a degree where it is commented upon very much. A news entry isn't terribly germane. Geogre 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did get some hits on the first page of Google, some of them as 4-IM. Rhion 19:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the following comments notice should be taken that User:Ashibaka had edited the page to add some silliness about the number four desiring independence from the real numbers. I have now reverted his edits to the page. The 'real' content is non trivial.

  • Delete as non-notable. Did anyone look at the bottom of the article and see the other 4IM community where the number 4 was petitioning to leave the set of real numbers as it was held prisoner by numbers 3 and 5? This smells more of a hoax. Ifnord 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I found the article non-notable even without the vandalism. My vote stands. Ifnord 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. As above, the number bit proves that the page is nonserious. It seems, honestly, more appropriate for uncyclopedia. The other part has no meaningful google results either. Cool3 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Mecanismo 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4IM 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC) I don't understand what everyone is talking about and why there seems to be a campaign to delete both of 4IMs pages on Wikipedia? I obviously got the wrong idea about Wikipdeia being a 'on-line encyclopedia'. I do not understand why these pages are not allowed? If you are going to have pages about Pokemon cards then surely an organisation which is in co-operation with the Free Scotland Party, Liberal councillor in Humber and also affiliated to many other organisations then I would say it is 'notable' (whatever that constitutes)? Could someone please help me with making the pages 'relevant' to Wikipedia?? And what is all the talk of number independence? The organisation supports independence of 4 UK countries, which are Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, hence 4?[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. In the Welsh Nationalism article (4IM was added in an edit in November 2005) they claim it was started in 2000. This webpage [1] claims a 2002 start and states it is "open" to alliances with similar minded parties. This website [2] claims a start in the 1990's. This "party" has no verifiable alliances with any major party advocating the devolution of the UK and one of thier websites states that "There is a plan that we may become an politcal party in England (4IP) in time for a 2009/10 election.". Movementarian 09:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This really isn't a notable movement. The page is little more than vanity at the moment. Peeper 11:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are tons of minor political parties and movements with articles on Wikipedia. Why the fuss about this one?--Mais oui! 15:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It was created by a person from the organisation itself,
    2. It has no webpage results in the first pages of Google when searching for '4IM',
    3. No results for the term at all when searching Google and BBC News websites,
    4. The organisation would appear to have actualy done next to noting notable enough to require a page,
    5. Only people random searching or knowing what they were looking for would reach the page.
    6. No sources beyond their own webpage
      1. Even that page has no reference to media coverage which one would expect a notable political movement to have.
    7. How do we know this organisation exists outside of their website and Wikipedia article at all? --Neo 16:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- valid political movement (and one which answers the "East Lothian Question") with a EU perspective, since all 4 countries will eventually become European Regions, akin to Andorra or the Dutch-Belgian enclaves.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The movement is valid, but have you heard of the organisation outside of the context of this article? I appreciate and support their motives, but this article seems to just be an attempt to gain support for the organisation, which seems to be quite small. Thats not what Wikipedia is for. --Neo 16:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Movementarian's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. David | Talk 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be notable a political party needs to demonstrate that someone takes them seriously other than themselves. If they were a band, they would fail WP:MUSIC with flying black and yellow colours. --Last Malthusian 00:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dem Bones[edit]

  • Nothing but song lyrics. Is this song not copyrighted?? If the song is not copyrighted, whoever is the next voter here please identify so if the reason is to keep. I vote to delete if no one can change the article's text from lyrics to song info. Georgia guy 01:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a well-known Negro spiritual and is in the public domain. The song is a well known one with 157,000 Google hits see [3] and a number of Google book results see [4]. Keep and cleanup. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and cleanup. worthawholebean talkcontribs 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, do we not have a proper article on this song? Clean up the lyrics and move them to Wikisource, and expand the article to discuss the song itself. This might, I suppose, involve deleting this and listing it as a requested article, but I hope someone will volunteer to do the job before that becomes necessary. — Haeleth Talk 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the article removing most of the lyrics and adding the content. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Capitalistroadsterization to keep. ☺ Uncle G 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice rewrite! If this is traditional, we should be able to put the lyrics someplace, right? Jessamyn 04:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Traditional does not necessarily mean not subject to copyright. If the lyrics are in the public domain, then, yes, there is a place to put them. Uncle G 04:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. 23skidoo 14:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current content. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a few bits to it. [5] seems to think it's Public Domain, so lyrics would be good. However google seems to offer at least 3 different versions of the lyrics - none of them matching the ones I knew! (De foot bone connected to de ankle bone etc). Stevage 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice work Cap. Alf melmac 11:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

President v congress[edit]

Somebody's school essay. POV. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manifestation portals[edit]

Some kind of original research at best. -- Curps 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 02:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dry river anarchist collective[edit]

Doesn't document the importance of this organization. Delete. Catamorphism 01:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The organization got a modest amount of press coverage when members were arrested during a peace protest. [6][7] Durova 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although the members might have gotten arrested, the article as it stands is just a record of their new hall. This is a local chapter, albeit one with more success than the usual. Geogre 17:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be much noteable press about this yet, and for an organization only started a few days ago it seems a little too soon to be calling them encyclopedic just yet. HackJandy 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another local political organization. And if being arrested during peace protests make you notable enough for an article, half the people I went to college with should be in here. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 02:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HHLV/tmp[edit]

Appears to be an orphaned draft of a cleanup for the active HHLV article. No activity since October. StuffOfInterest 01:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We reached consensus, and the proposals from the /tmp page were adopted, so it's fine to get rid of it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above voters are the only people in the temp's history. If they don't think it's required to credit them, I'm happy to delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DISAMBIGUATE. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wumpa[edit]

at the moment this disambiguates between a fruit in a videogame (which shuld be merged) and a person who gets 2 google hits so is very likely nn. BL kiss the lizard 01:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the fruit is already mentioned in Crash Bandicoot, though the bit about making paper from it isn't. The person is nn. Both are overshadowed by a cartoon character in the cartoon Wumpa's World, though I don't think a redirect to that is necessecary. The page has no incoming links, so I say simple delete. -Meegs 02:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between (Wumpa is a type of fruit in Crash Bandicoot) and (Wumpa the Walrus is the main character in the cartoon Wumpa's World) -Meegs 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely a non-noteworthy person. Mushintalk 02:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the person is unimportant and the video game reference is already contained in another page. Catamorphism 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Crash Bandicoot, to allow people searching for the fruit to easily find it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate between fruit and TV show, now Wumpa's World has entered the picture. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The fruit and person are both, IMO, unremarkable (literally). Redirecting is an unlikely help in this case, as there's as much chance of a desire for the cartoon as for the video game as the person, and I think that chance is nearly zero in all three cases. Geogre 17:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The information on the fruit (related to paper) could be merged. As the person did, someone could use the fruit's name in public and spread it; that could lead people into looking up the meaning of "wumpa", and Wikipedia would be a likely choice: thus, merging would be useful for those people. The info about the person is useless, and it's not such a relevant person, so it can stay deleted. (December 5, 2005). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.21.244 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2005 December 5
  • Disambiguation: I'm new at this, but why not having a disambiguation page showing either Wumpa from Wumpa's World and the Wumpa fruit? Wumpa from Wumpa's World will redirect to Wumpa's World and Wumpa Fruit will redirect to Crash Bandicoot. (December 5, 2005) And, the "person" is just a joke from some portuguese message board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.182.32 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2005 December 5
I've changed my vote above. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me too -Meegs 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

¡El Toro Loco![edit]

Spam-like advertising for a "free-for-all" web forum. Suggest deletion. 69.236.184.108 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN, per nom. Olorin28 03:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 06:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. --Bachrach44 16:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • El Picadore: Umm, a collection of zanies who enjoy each others' company as adolescence ends and maturity begins. A touching case, but Wikipedia is not a web guide, and nothing sets this group above the hundreds of very similar cases, so delete. Geogre 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: spam. --Mecanismo 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um.... then why do other forums have article entries (i.e. the GameFAQs and IGN forums)? Other websites have articles too. I'm not sure I understand why this one is being targeted. 67.84.213.209 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your confusion. The reason is that we do allow articles on the most massive, most important of websites, but it isn't a question of numbers. Although some voters will refer to Alexa rank or number of participants, what's at stake, really, is leadership position and effect upon the world. Thus, some site, like GameFAQs, are just plain massive. Others, like IGN, are referred to consistently in magazines and TV shows (TechTV in the US and Canada, e.g.). When a site is referred to in other media, people will have "heard" of it and need an encyclopedia to explain what it is. Thus, Wikipedia does not guide people in general about web contents, but it takes into account those sites that are cultural forces. Geogre 13:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Jurse[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in December 1970. Google for "Jennifer Jurse" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 01:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Merge this and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, where she's already mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and unlink: She's not nearly as famous as the first one, above, Heide. She simply appeared nekkid one month. Geogre 18:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and delink per above. BD2412 T 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Penthouse Pets. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franca Petrov[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of Penthouse magazine in December 1970. Google for "Franca Petrov" gives a short list of sites detailing vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn

  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Merge this and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, where she's already mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unlink: Gosh, I actually had that one! Umm, never knew her name. I only read the articles, you see. Geogre 18:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and delink per above. BD2412 T 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Centerfold July 1970[edit]

Article about an unknown and unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Saberwyn 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A3 due to lack of content. It would be impossible to write a useful article under this title; if the model were identified, the article would be under her own name (either a real name or a modeling name). --Metropolitan90 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we need at least a name. Gazpacho 03:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we have a name we can't have an article. Possible A3 speedy delete as Metropolitan90 notes due to lack of content. Capitalistroadster 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the fact that she remains "unknown" for 30+ years is quite remarkable for an industry that requires documentation of name/age and stuff just to be able to use the photograph... perhaps there is something that can be written to make it worth saving?  ALKIVAR™ 04:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Delete this one and merge the picture and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for lack of content. Basically this states Penthouse had a centerfold in July 1970. This fact doesn't need a separate article until we can name the woman. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article title should (at the very least) state which magazine the model was in. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing here. If in fact Penthouse (for some reason) featured an anonymous cover model - something I highly doubt - then this might be an OK trivia item for the magazine's main article. 23skidoo 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about as vacuous as you can get. Unknown woman, known only to a "select" band of one-handed typists (and even then not by name, since they were not looking at the words as such). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We delete "secret societies" for being unverifiable. We will therefore delete a secret naked woman. Also, she was no more unknown at the time than any of the others, so don't think she's an intentionally unknown model (unlike Penthouse's pseudonymous model who looked very, very, very, very young but whom they swore was over 18). Geogre 18:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alkivar is proposing that we abandon our policy of no original research. Something that is remarkable for being unknown is only acceptable here if we can cite a reliable source outside of Wikipedia remarking upon the fact that it is unknown. In other words, the fact that it is unknown must itself be known, and must be already known outside of Wikipedia, and demonstrably so. If there's a reliable source that documents the fact that the woman pictured is unknown, and documents speculation as to her identity, or research into her identity, then we can use that source. But going and researching Playboy ourselves, concluding from our research that this woman is unknown, and then documenting that novel conclusion, is original research.

    And, of course, there's the fact that such a novel conclusion is almost certainly wrong, as several editors have already pointed out. Delete. Uncle G 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • No really i'm not saying write original research here... I'm just saying IF she is really unknown, aka we REALLY cant find any proof of who she is... THEN and ONLY THEN should we have content on her. And probably in that case it belongs in the article for Penthouse anyways. Please dont put words in my mouth, yours taste bad :P  ALKIVAR™ 06:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you really are proposing the abandonment of our policy against original research. "we REALLY cant find any proof" is original research. It's not up to us to research the identity of this woman, draw conclusions from the data that we find, and publish those conclusions here. Such research has to be done outside of Wikipedia. Please refresh your memory of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. The words in your mouth are and have been your own. If advocating original research tastes bad, don't advocate it. ☺ Uncle G 07:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your own bionicle[edit]

Well-meaning but inappropriate invitation to use a Wikipedia page for free-form community discussion of bionicles. However, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider; "you may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia." Also, descriptions of "your own" bionicles is essentially original research, prohibited under the no original research policy. I think it would OK for User:JMB to use his own Talk page for discussion, and invite people to do so in Talk:Bionicles. But as an article in the main namespace, this is unencyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; redirected as per Mgm. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tina McDowall[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Tina McDowall" gives a list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A scattering of people sharing that name also appear, but these people are even less plausible for an encyclopedia entry. Saberwyn 02:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Merge this and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, where she's already mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Oh dear. I suppose the best solution is agallery of Penthouse covers - but wait, are they not copyright? Anyway, unless they can establish rather more than being the best of the few models in that month's Penthouse, they clearly have no place here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete and unlink. (She looks like a Sleestack with that hairdo and that scan.) Just a bit of list filling out, I gather, and the memorial of someone's rite of passage. Geogre 18:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to List of Penthouse Pets. — JIP | Talk 10:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Mannering[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Katherine Mannering" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A handful of hits detail a character from a novel by the same name. Saberwyn 02:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Merge this and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, where she's already mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unlink: No career beyond her session without her clothes. Ephemera and OCD list filling. Geogre 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Santerra[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for " Tamara Santerra" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I don't really see any useful need for this, but being on the cover of Penthouse might warrant notability. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing that makes this person of note is that photographs of her were published in one issue of an adult magazine, a magazine with several hundred issues. If she had done anything else of note since, I wouldn't have nominated. Saberwyn 05:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ilse Hasek[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Ilse Hasek" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's with all the nn 1970 Penthouse cover models coming up for AfD together? Merge this and the other "nominees" in Penthouse cover models (1970). B.Wind 08:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, where she's already mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and unlink: No career outside of that session (an actual hippie!), it seems, so this is ephemera. Geogre 18:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sanctuary for Families[edit]

I'm sure this is organization is a worthy cause, but this page seems purely promotional Daniel Case 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. -^demon 03:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as a noteworthy charity. Over 17,000 Google hits including VolunteerNYC sponsored by the Mayor's Office and the United Way [8], reputable pro bono law publications [9]. The Nation and the Village Voice note this organization's legal staff [10], [11]. Durova 05:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced the mission statement with a paragraph about the organization's noteworthy accomplishments. Added external links. Durova 15:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but heavy overhaul as promotional per nom: less "we", more "they". We're here to inform the reader about them, not enthuse about their greatness. —Etaoin (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a keep per above, after vigorous polishing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikte Andersen[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. English-only Google for "Benedikte Andersen" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. A complete Google offers up 130 total hits, most of which are non-English, and I can't read. Saberwyn 02:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. If the foreign-language hits provide notability for this girl, I will reconsider. Saberwyn 02:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Anne Pendleton[edit]

Completely unremarkable adult model from the 70s. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in 1970. Google for "Polly Anne Pendleton" gives a short list of sites selling vintage Penthouse magazines, providing no more information that that currently in the article. Saberwyn 02:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Austin[edit]

Unremarkable adult model. Article contains nothing more than the fact that she was on the cover of an issue of Penthouse magazine in September 2005. According to Freeones, she has a handful of free online galleries, but in my personal opinion that means nothing in todays pornography industry. Saberwyn 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or merge into Penthouse cover models (2005). B.Wind 09:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets, where she's already mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not even referred to as a Pet. She's called a POM. I'm pretty sure that she's not a Pommie, but the presence of private slang is already an indication of this being, essentially, porncruft. She has no substantial career beyond this nudity. Geogre 18:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you're voting delete because someone abbreviated "Pet of the Month"? - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the reasoning above. She had no career beyond this. However, I was making a point about "cruft": When an item, service, artifact, or person is only known by die hard fans of a subject, then that subject does not transcend its most narrow context and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (That's my definition of "cruft.") The presence of the acronym shows that the motive and expected audience for the article is fans of particular runs of a particular magazine: cruft. Therefore, it is not encyclopedic. Geogre 13:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-German border 1938[edit]

Is unlinked, adds absolutely nothing to wikipedia, does not even describe the border and is misleading as the border lasted from 1920 to 1945 (at least formally) and de facto from 1919 to 1939 Halibutt 02:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ripcording[edit]

Neologism? Only 169 google hits for this word, most of which are not about the definition used here. JeremyA 02:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Daniel Case 02:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ...nothing I can really think of to describe this, it's pretty weird. Mo0[talk] 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism - or redirect to parachute ;-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neologism/ad for a new service, fairly likely to be some product's terminology. I doubt a redirect is called for, but, if one were, I'd favor parachute, too. Geogre 18:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Ifnord 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Mecanismo 15:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guidestone[edit]

not needed - the info is already covered in homeworld, and this doesn't seem to be important enough to warrant its own page. --Bachrach44 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - topic is completely covered in a sentence in homeworld (a video game) . Page is two months old, and hasn't been touched since its creation, so there's no reason to think that article will grow. -Meegs 02:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homeworld KillerChihuahua 14:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlink it in Homeworld, too, eh? I have a feeling a lot of proper nouns get links in articles when they're written, and then the authors feel compelled to write self-evident or bizarre things like this to justify those links. The subject is a component of a larger topic, where it is already discussed, so no need for separate treatment or, I think, a redirect. Geogre 18:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's covered by Homeworld.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paleoliberalism[edit]

Appears to be an obscure neologism. Our article gives no citation of notable use (or of anything else). A term in contemporary American politics that only gets 138 Google hits is probably not ready for prime time, and a quick survey of several of those links does not suggest to me that they all use it to mean the same thing. It is (barely) possible that there should be an article here, and I might be convinced by some good citations; I suspect, though, that if someone does the research they will find that the particular meaning the article claims for the term is not borne out even by the bulk of the meagre collection of known uses. Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only source of any consequence that I found was this article by Michael Lind in The Nation that paleoliberal used to be an early name for neoconservative back in the days of Scoop Jackson see [12]. Apparently, no Google book results and 2 Google scholar results of which one is the Nation article mentioned above [13].Capitalistroadster 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, the only source of any consequence that Capitalistroadster found contradicts the meaning "documented" in the current article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have heard this older neologism used in dialogue more than once, but very recently (two weeks ago). I find it interesting that its resurgence may be a way to anger neoconservatives by describing them with a term containg 'liberal', as that seemed to be the context in which I heard paleoliberalism. 42Moxies 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per capitalistroadster, and note Special:Contributions/PaleoLib. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if Wiktionary doesn't have it: It's not a neologism, and I've heard it (being paleolithic, myself), but it's not really something around which to build an article. At most, it could be a redirect to neoconservative, but that would be soooo disputed. Geogre 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to delete: contents are not appropriate for transwiki, and I'm doing what I scold others not to do: proposing entirely new content so that there can be a transwiki. That's not appropriate. The article as it stands is just another attempt at subversion and is false. Geogre 13:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Author has not been here but has been linking (and re-inserting after reversion) in every "liberal" article in sight, including the template. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, articles like this are what makes the wikipedia strong. Detailed accounts of of obscure topics at a quality that can't be found elsewhere. Never delete anything simply because its obscure, people WANT obscure info, thats why they read reference books! Sam Spade 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that it's obscure, it's more that what references exist point to a different (and equally obscure) meaning. The fact that the user is called "paleolib" may also indicate the presence of tigers... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah... well can we improve it then? Sam Spade 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per submitter --Mecanismo 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with Sam Spade. The purpose of wikipedia is to serve as an online encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to bring things out of obscurity. With this article more people will know of the concept of paleoliberalism. That's the objective of wikipedia, to spread knowledge. -- Crevaner 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the objective of Wikipedia is to document existing knowledge, not to make stuff up or act as the PR agent for obscure stuff somebody recently made up. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per submitter. Besides, there's not a single freaking outside reference or citation I can find in the article to its ostensible subject. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not obscure, I'm absolutely sure I've read the name "paleo-liberalism" elsewhere before. -- HowardDean 14:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, doesn't even cite any sources. I may reconisder if sources are cited. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made-up term that has some currency in the blogosphere. -Willmcw 16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see this edit, which I have reverted. I'm encouraging User:PaleoLib to raise her/his issues here. No vote. AndyJones 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course it's a made-up term, just as "paleoconservative" and "neoconservative" are made-up terms. That doesn't mean they should not be on Wikipedia. And, Willmcw since you claim it has currency in the blogosphere, then it has notability. -- AndrewBartlett 00:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, lots of stuff in the blogspere is not notable. As far as I can tell only one dictionary carries the term (American Heritage), and even with all those blogs it still scores fewer than 800 Google hits. Exclude Wiki mirrors and dictionaries and that's down to under 650. Not a lot, I'd say, for a political subject - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Capitalistroadster .--Dakota t e 00:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with points made above, especially that the article can be improved. -- Radicalsubversiv2 16:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I am the person that created the article and of course object to it being deleted. The accusation that I made the term up is ridiculous. I've read it in various articles and webpages. That's where I got the name and from those articles and webpages I was able to put together the description of Paleoliberalism. As others have commented, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as Wikipedia describes it an encyclopedia is "a written compendium of knowledge". And knowledge is exactly why the article should stay. I created the article as a public service of sorts, for those who my not know the term, but may know the concept. If the article is deleted it will do a great disservice to this website. Therefore I humbly request all of you who have voted for deletion to reconsider your votes and instead vote to Keep out of the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. -- PaleoLib 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it stands this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please cite some sources and I'll gladly change my vote. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read it in various articles and webpages. Good. Then cite them -- and because you used the plural, I'm going to have to insist on multiple AND RELIABLE citations.
      • Keep out of the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. An encyclopedia, a teriary source of information summarizing and documenting existing knowledge, not primary source, not a sounding board, and not a propaganda outlet. Wikipedia should be serving its readers, not its editors. --Calton | Talk 06:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've found a source. Apparently the term was coined by Ludwig von Mises. -- TrojanMan 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow, so that makes it three people who've discussed this concept, including the article's author! No doubt one day it'll be in all the textbooks... :-)
    • Doing some more digging, that is not a source. It's a blog whihc states that as far as the author knows the term was coined by von Mises. Other sources say it is older, but none seem to cite any published authority. I only found one tectbook reference of any sort, a vry brief def in American Heritage Dictionary, which doesn't seem to support half of what this article says. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with the points made by my friend Crevaner, and Sam Spade, as well as those of the author PaleoLib. PL makes a valid point about the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- Judson 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the statements about bringing things out of obscurity. I knew the concept of "paleoliberalism", but didn't know the word. I thank the person who made the article. -- Voldemort 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "…but didn't know the word." Perhaps that's because…(drumroll)…it isn't the world? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly Merge with Classical Liberalism. The principles espoused in this article are fairly in line with most Libertarian positions, and in fact I can see very little in it that really differs with common notions of Classical Liberalism. On general principle though, I feel Wikipedia is not a resource of finite bandwidth, or pagespace, as the guideline stated. Hence, I think it should be kept, but possibly narrowed to tailor itself to focus towards the specific minutiae that separate it from other forms of Libertarian/Individual Rights political ideology. Kade 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused about your distinction between liberalism and liberterianism. -Willmcw 01:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul[edit]

I just overhauled the article, have a look. Sam Spade 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any sources. -Willmcw 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Sam Spade 01:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know it was like that when you got there. But the improvements you made don't fix the core problem with the article—that it is all original research. -Willmcw 01:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What if we merged it w Classical_Liberalism? Sam Spade 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would that give it sources? This is a personal essay by user:PaleoLib. If we merge it then it's worse because we wouldn't realize how unsourced it is. (It's like asking a vegetarian "Well, could you eat the meat if we cut it up finely and hid it in a sauce?") The fact is that the word is a slightly-used neologism, and if we wanted to we could accumulate all of the different meanings of the word. But that's dictionary-making. There doesn't seem to be "paleoliberal" movement that uses the word. If there is, we should find sources that atalk about it. Either way, we need sources. -Willmcw 02:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no academic sources, that I can find, that refer to this particular political idea. There are however blog and political publication sources which use it in reference to current events. Certainly that can warrant it a sub-section inside a much larger, well known sub-ideology of Liberalism? Kade 03:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That'd mean throwing out this article and starting from scratch. But yes, I think that an article (or section) of whatever length would be fine—so long as it is sourced. In this instance political blogs and named forum contributors might be considered appropriate sources. -Willmcw 03:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already voted above, but I want to reiterate: if someone can come up with more than a handful of citations that this word is used with some consistency of meaning, fine, but, otherwise, original research shouldn't be here, adn making it redirect somewhere is likely to be actively misleading, because we've already found multiple uses among the few that exist. If someone comes across a reference to paleoliberal meaning a Nixon-era neoconservative and looks up the word, it's not use to them at all to get a redirect to something else entirely. If we are going to have this in Wikipedia at all, what we need is a decently cited article on how the word has actually been used, linking to the articles that then explain the (diverse) ideologies for which this is an (uncommon) name. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CEObytes[edit]

Advertising, company does not meet WP:CORP standard. Delete -- AJR | Talk 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Advertising. Colonel Tom 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the article is written in the first person, you know it's spam and should be deleted. --Bachrach44 16:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—for obvious reasons. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam --Mecanismo 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Bltpdx 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quattrocchi[edit]

Hoax. Found nothing at google. Chris the speller 03:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Hoax Chris the speller 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. Mo0[talk] 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Mecanismo 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This came up when I typed quattrocchi "new jersey" crime sicilian into Google. Not much else.
  • Changing my earlier vote from Delete - Hoax to Delete - NN. (unless the local library has a book about them). Chris the speller 16:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC) votede[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greeneyes[edit]

nn webcomic, 23 unique Google hits (Greeneyes + JetFuel) which one of the Google links calls a "Seldom-updated web comic", and which JetFuel him/herself says on http://greeneyes.metalbat.com/news.pl "I'm not sure when greeneyes will be back, but I hope that it will be someday. We're very sorry that things are so uncertain". User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against. This webcomic has been running for years and breaks like this are quite normal on long-running webcomics. On the other hand, I find it impressive that just after creating the article and going to commit the second bunch of lines (just one or two minutes passed), I found I already had an edit conflict and it was an AFD request. I find that very unpleasant, it becomes hard to start an article like this.Rvalles 03:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it hasn't been updated in years. :-) bogdan 17:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's plain wrong. It may be on a break right now while the main author K works on other stuff of his, but the latest strip is only weeks old, far from years; don't be fooled by their copyright notice at the very bottom of the page... that one certainly hasn't been upgraded for ages.Rvalles 03:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not dead, it's resting" :-) look at what it says at: http://www.metalbat.com/ a quiet webcomic (presently defunct) bogdan 10:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To make it even funnier, just after seconds of merging that second commit and the VFD, somebody put it for speedy deletion. Please, let me work on the article, or rather, let me have some grace time to _create_ it at least!.Rvalles 03:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. See, that's the point, we don't want you to waste your work if the comic is deemed non-notable and the article is deleted. On the other hand, if you create an article on the Comixpedia Wiki it's almost certainly not going to be deleted there. Nifboy 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What if the next commit was going to discuss the fact that it was published in the Narobi Times, circulation 7 million, and was translated in 14 African languages? If the original author is still posting it, they obviously believe it's notable, and should at least have the chance to assert that notability.--Prosfilaes 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should also come up in the AfD discussion, as well as be citable. The point of a Google search is an attempt to find some kind of source that points to the notability of the comic. If it is that notable, then Google should come up with something. Nifboy 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On notability, I have to remark I got into it since the authors of other webcomics that I like a lot, Seasons of Constancy and Tsunami Channel, talked about it on the authors' comments under their comics. Since it's interesting, I'll comment on those quotes at the article itself.Rvalles 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Rvalles 08:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please dont waiste my time with this kind of noms. Can you please provide the google URL you derice the 23 hit count? --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Dual vote. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rvalles has already expanded this into a non-stub page. I see reasonable potential for this. -- Znode 08:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bravely, I say delete: It's lavishly illustrated, but I do not see any indication that it is widespread, published, or discussed in other media. Wikipedia is not a web guide nor a web comics guide. If it's very popular within its own world, that's a fine thing, but that would be said also of certain web forums, fan fiction, and micronations. This is a general encyclopedia, and therefore all subjects should have broken out of their own fan bases to a wider, confused world that requires explanation. Geogre 18:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm going to go for delete too. For me, being referenced by other comics just doesn't make it stand out from the crowd. - Hahnchen 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn webcomic per nom, Geogre. Eusebeus 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + Hahnchen. Webcomics, by nature, tend towards friendly relations and linking to other webcomics. Not everything linked to by even Slashdot or Penny Arcade are notable. Nifboy 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep discrete knowlege should be welcome on wikipedia. --Cool CatTalk|@ 03:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the heck does that mean? Discrete knowledge? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not ridicule other people based on them misspelling a word or two. Please do not irritate or attemt to irritate ever again. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably "not general knownedge", that is, the knownedge that's known not by everybody, but by people into math, physics, webcomics or history.Rvalles 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far we have three naked "keeps" that don't provide a rational, one "discrete knowlege", and one "don't waiste my time". Wait, that's Cool Cat twice. This has no Alexa, low google for greeneyes webcomic OR Jetfuel, and no other claim to notability barring two tangential references. I recomend transwiki and delete per Tony Sidaway. Good idea. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It means we do not want to bother giving a reason. It can be interpreted that this VfD nomination is that bad. No personal offense intended. Sorry for the duplicat votes. --Cool CatTalk|@ 11:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    As nicely as possible, if you can't be bothered giving a reason, please don't "vote". It's not a vote, it's a discussion. Even if you just say "keep per Znode", give us something, please. Why do you think this is a bad nomination? Is it actually notable, but WP:CITE hasn't happened yet? Please note that Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion says explicitly "Always explain your reasoning."- brenneman(t)(c) 12:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaron, please remember that this is a discussion on whether to delete the article, not whether to keep it, and that for deletion you need a consensus. If you want to make an argument for deletion, please feel free to do so. If you're unable to persuade us that it should be deleted, then it won't be deleted. But please, I ask you, stop this hectoring and bullying and telling people what they can and cannot do in a deletion debate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think both of you are skirting the bounds of civility. Tony, I specifically think that describing Aaron's comments as "bullying" is quite unfair. I'd like to ask you to redact yourself. Nandesuka 21:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you Nandesuka, you are of course correct. I was flippant and chose my words poorly. I've redacted.
          brenneman(t)(c) 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. No significance of this webcomic explained in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it meets the notability guidelines, but I can't bring myself to vote delete or even be non-participatory on this one. The article itself is well-done, and the material is of quality. On occasion, that should trump notability IMNSHO. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we're now suggesting that nn-comics should be kept, yet nn-bios should be speedied? Wow. - Hahnchen 15:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I think it's a good article and in this case I'm not impressed by the notability argument. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is also not a bottomless pit for Stuff. Pilatus 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here is where I point out that Wiki isn't paper and I am in turn reminded it's also not a directory of Web sites. It's not a discussion we need to repeat again. You have my input on the matter, and it's not going to change. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kilobug. This article is well-written, and one of the things which makes wikipedia so great is that you can find informations on a huge variety of subjects. I don't see any reason to suppress a well-written, complete article about a fictional artwork which has its fans.--Kilobug 13:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It hasn't got any impact. Pilatus 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Geogre. Get famous first, and then write the Wikipedia article. Nandesuka 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular culture and emergent internet literary forms --- especially long running examples --- are worth documenting in the Wikipedia for the sake of having current second hand sources for future scholars. Wmjuntunen 04:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact it has served as an inspiration at least one notable web comic (Tsunami Channel) is certainly evidence supporting a claim of "setting a trend" (see WP:WEB). Though finding other references to it by other authors would be helpful. I'll come out and say right now I've used it as a reference for Okashina Okashi, another notable comic (though I'm a bit biased when it comes to OO). Xuanwu 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Having read "Wiki is Not" closer, I say this successfully passes the test for inclusion on all grounds. The article is NOT: defining jargon, publishing original material, propaganda (in need of NPOV, maybe, but not promotion, certainly), a repository of links, personal home page, indiscriminate list of info (as per the examples given there), or crystal ball. Therefore, by the official Wiki standards, this article merits inclusion. QED. ^_^ Xuanwu 05:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And one more comment to really nail the coffin of this AfD: Wiki is not a bureaucracy. Fiercely applying Alexa violates the spirit of the law (and its letter, as I just showed). So, I argue that the spirit of Wiki's rules (as well as the proto-spirit of WP:WEB) supports this articles presence. And now I'm going to be insufferable with future web comic AfDs. I just know it. ^_^ Xuanwu 05:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's worth noting that that section about "setting a trend" was added to WP:WEB by you, attempted to be used by you to support an argument of yours at WP:DRV (since archived), removed several times, discussed on the talk page and found wanting, removed several times again, and recently added back in. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The edit history of that policy page is simply a function of the tumultuous nature of working by concensus (note that it was not added back by me, but by someone else who agreed). And even without the setting a trend argument, the spirit of WP:WEB still supports the inclusion of this article. So your comment has little relevance to the matter at hand. Please avoid ad hominem personal attacks; this does not reflect well on someone up for arbitration. Xuanwu 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure that any single person is qualified to claim that they understand the "spirit" of a guideline. And thanks for reminding me that I' currently having a struggle session held over my opinion that webcomics should meet the same encyclopedic standard as everything else. Is it at all possible that silencing dissenting opinions is an undesirable result? It's here, in case anyone is interested. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I claim no privileged knowledge of the law's spirit, only knowledge of how I view it. If you have a different view, then state it as it applies to this AfD. Trying to discredit my views with irrelevant edit histories has no place here. It's hard to "silence a dissenting opinion" when you have yet to voice any opinion on the topic, let alone a dissenting one. As for the merits of the arbitration, I won't comment here since it's not relevant and I don't want to assist in your derailing of the AfD discussion beyond personal defense. Xuanwu 07:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure, void of encyclopedic value. The article seems to be someone's pet project. --Mecanismo 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. bogdan 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, webcomics really aren't my thing, but this one does seem to exist and the article gives a decent write-up and there are pretty pictures (it's creative commons). I'd suggest keep or, if there really is a consensus for deletion, that the article be held until someone from comixpedia has been asked if they want to take a copy. Think of it as a kind of transwiki. If they don't want it then it can be put out of its misery. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revised vote. A rarity for me: strong keep. The reference to Greeneyes in Tsunami Channel did it for me. The first thing I noticed when I visited that webcomic was the eye coloring of the girl. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell. Keep. 99% of the NN articles I see, the articles a crummy ("the band cant play instraments yet and they dont have any but they plan a world tour in 2009.") But this is a good article. I like greeneyes. And I hate to delete good articles. So if the Tsunami Channel thingy gives me an excuse, I'll take it. Herostratus 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The purpose of the various notability guidelines is to remove material that is unencyclopedic—that is, material that does not (and cannot) constitute a proper article in an encyclopedia. A good article being written, as has been done here, on a subject that may be considered "non-notable" suggests that the spirit, if not the letter, of the guidelines has been satisfied. —Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So a well-written article about the doorknob on my bathroom door would meet your keep criteria? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that I said "good article" rather than "well-written article". I think the bar for inclusion is more easily passed by an article about an artistic work (even a little-known or unimportant one) than by an article about a mass-manufactured household item; but yes, if you were able to write such an article, I see no reason why it could not be included. It would be harder than it seems, I suspect, simply because there's very little to say about the average doorknob that is both verifiable and meaningful; but there likely are particular doorknobs (with enough history or distinguishing features) for which legitimate articles could be written—the doorknobs in the National Academy of Sciences building, for instance [14]. —Kirill Lokshin 03:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, this is where I totally disagree. In my time at wikipedia, I have nominated some "good" informative articles on absolutely non notable subjects, and will continue to do so. I'm surprised at the amount of support this one has obtained and the amount of attention it seems to have garnered though, but I do not think that the bar of inclusion should be lowered or raised depending on the perceived quality of an article. I would vote to keep a substub on something notable as I did for the Quantic Dream article, yet would vote to delete an article aproaching featured quality on someone's house. I don't care how much it's worth, who built it, who it's former residents were and how bad the kitchen fire of 2003 was. - Hahnchen 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think article quality and "notability" tend to intersect rather neatly (as I noted, perhaps less clearly than I could, above). In other words, if we are able to write a near-featured-quality article (with all of the details of referencing and so forth that the status entails) about a house, it serves as an indication that the house is notable; conversely, a truly non-notable house will make for a lack of references (as well as a lack of verifiable content for the article). So the quality of an article, while not the only factor, is certainly an indication of the subject's potential. —Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think it's worth noting that there's a lot of good information that can be written on any given work of fiction (See: WP:FICT amongst others). Doesn't make the fiction any better or more notable. Nifboy 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hahnchen: your example would fall under the "indiscriminate information" part of "Wiki is Not." There is a large difference between a web comic that has influenced three other notable comics and someone's house. As I showed above, "Wiki is Not" clearly seems to indicate that this article is fine for inclusion. Please pick a better example to avoid the paper tiger fallacy. Also, I think a reason this has drawn attention is the fact the community thinks this article is notable. Also, there's been a much closer eye brought to the status of web comic articles on Wiki over the past few weeks in large part due to all the deletions that have happened. In essence, your own past actions (and those of others) have motivated other editors to react and respond to help make Wiki better by blocking what they think of as bad AfDs. An interesting example of a social feedback loop in action. Xuanwu 02:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please note that you are the only user who has made this declaration. It's easy to project our own motivations onto others, in particular when they agree to a course of action. I'd urge you to speak as much as possible for your own motivations. If other editors make explicit reference to blocking "bad AfDs" then you may reasonable mentions it. As it is you are drawing on facts not in evidence.- brenneman(t)(c) 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually I think I agree with Xuanwu on this. I've seen a similar reaction in response to Neutrality's campaign to delete school articles in April May--as a result of that reaction, it's now all but impossible for anyone to delete an article about a school provided the school actually exists and is not a pre-school. The unfortunately deletion listing of Checkerboard Nightmare had ramifications beyond Wikipedia, and ultimately led to internal side-effects that , through the arbitration case, drew this campaign of webcomic deletions to my attention. So on a wiki, it's true that every action has an opposite reaction. History has shown that the reaction is seldom equal; deletion campaigns, where they are seen to pick the wrong target, tend to backfire because the reaction has a somewhat greater effect. Engaging in what looks like attempts to marginalise dissent, and to bully those who disagree with you, well it makes things worse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That was a nice speech. It would be nice if any of that were backed up with some diffs, though. If I may address each of the claims you've made:
                    1. Difficult to delete schools now just because of neutrality
                    2. The AfD for Checkerboard Nightmare was "unfortunate"
                    3. Previous deletion campaigns - like what
                    4. seen to pick the wrong target- by whom
                    5. a somewhat greater effect - like what
                    6. Those who vote delete here are marginalise dissent and bullying.
                  • Please do attempt to present a concise rational for the keeping of this article. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Aaron, I warn you that your wording above is on the absolute edge of good faith. I'll leave my words to stand, for the current situation readily illustrates the unwisdom of deletion campaigns and the last thing this debate needs is more nitpicking.
                  • And again I remind you that nobody ever needs to provide a rationale to keep an article. Unless a consensus can be raised to delete it, it will not be deleted. The article should be kept in my opinion because it's a perfectly lovely article about a rather pretty webcomic that influenced two others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The AfD for Checkboard Nightmare was unfortunate, because it pissed a lot of people off. It was seen to pick the wrong target by many webcomics fans. See the Websnark article on the AfD.--Prosfilaes 07:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Webcomics are already taking the flavour of schools, theres been a webcomic afd watch page for quite a while now. If wikipedia is going to say, "yes, let's allow articles for all webcomics", then we better start removing the wiki is not a web directory because it obviously would be. No, the comparison to the house is not fallacious, no matter what you claim. It's just that you see the house on the wrong side of indiscriminate information, whereas I see them both to be on the wrong side. So a webcomic is notable if it influences another webcomic. Right, OK, what about the webcomics which influenced this one? And then? - Hahnchen 10:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And then? Then we should have kept all articles on influential webcomics! This would be a good thing. We only want to delete dross, not good material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Aaron: I think the recent efforts to "clean up" web comics on Wiki can be deemed a "deletion campaign," since deletion was the primary tool used for this clean up. Also, ym statement about a reaction to it was not judging the worthiness of the attempted clean up (it had both good and bad points about it); I am saying that people are reacting to how they preceive it. And, like it or not, many seem to view it as "bad," because articles that appear well written wound up deleted alongside those that were obvious poor entries (like some "My web comic is teh awesome~!!!111!!one!"). I'll point to this AfD as anecdotal evidence: I think a few months ago this article would have been deleted with little ceremony. Now enough people have become aware of past deletions that you're starting to see some actual debate on the topic. In some ways it's good because now the concensus is more representative of what the people want, in other ways it can be negative since it will mean having to present much stronger arguments for deletion than simply "Fails Alexa, not notable, delete" (which was the general gist of many previous AfDs). So now the people who want to see something deleted have to work harder to make it so. Not entirely bad.
                        • Hahnchen: No, the house is still flawed because it is a poor example that lacks similarity to the issue at hand (again, a paper tiger you've constructed because it's easier to tackle than the matter at hand). A web comic is like a science article or a literary work. And their electronic format means they can affect thousands across the globe. When a scientific article is published, part of what makes it important is not just the results it finds, but how much it is cited (you can look online to see how this is measured). An article is important not just because of its content or how many read it, but by who cites it. If an obscure study is cited in an article that itself becomes famous, then the article cited itself is notable for the role it played in shaping that person's research. Similarly, when an artist paints, they usually study the works of others. If they become famous, then those who inspired them likewise become famous for the role they played in shaping the work. Another example, when Wen Wang became the first Emperor of the Zhou Dynasty in China, his father, Wu Wang, also became notable because of his role in setting the foundation for his son (I may be switching the roles of Wen and Wu, but you get the idea). What we have here is a webcomic that has served as a literary and artistic inspiration for at least three notable webcomics and possibly more. Therefore, it is notable in the same vein as the examples I just cited. And because the article itself passes the check of "Wiki is Not," there is no grounds for deletion. A house does not have this property of becoming notable through citation; so, again, your example is logically unsound. Xuanwu 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps not as notworthy as some would like, but it is definitely a good article, informative and well-written. You'd have to be a grumpy deletionist to get rid of it, and I'm not. Mushintalk 05:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre and Zoe. Very pretty article, but the low Alexa and Google numbers, together with the author's admission that the comic is dormant, make a case that this is non-notable. Xoloz 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick note: dormancy doesn't really factor into notability; that's why you can have webcomics that ended but were notable added here. Or comics that were notable when they updated (Tsunami Channel is a good example of this). Xuanwu 08:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. I see no reputable sources being used here. Friday (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a good article. I can see no notability issue. Hiding talk 12:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should have occured to me before, but I'd strongly support Userfy. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's a decent article on a notable webcomic. It should be in the article space. Wikipedia is supposed, unless I'm very much mistaken here, to be about presenting information of value in an encyclopedic way. I'm not quite sure how thie article fails on that count so miserably that it should not exist in the article space. Are we that pressed for room in the article space that we need this to go? If thine own eye offends thee... Hiding talk 05:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has established its notablity.--Prosfilaes 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability. --Jaranda wat's sup 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability and verifiability established to my satisfaction via evidence given by others, and the article is encyclopedic. Notability also based on the following factors:
    • Guest writers for some chapters are noteworthy in their own right.
    • Simultaneous story threads as an approach is of artistic signficance.
    • Use of elements for chapter headings is of artistic significance.
    • Anonymity of writer and illustrator is of artistic significance.
(Current dormancy is not evidence of non-notability. Poor Richard's Almanac is probably on hiatus too, ever since Ben Franklin died) That the article is already well written is useful but not in itself evidence of notability. It however, IS reason for the closing admin, should the decision be Delete, to hold off long enough to allow transferrence of content to a venue where notability standards are not as high, such as Comixpedia. Note: the fact that an article would be welcomed on Comixpedia is not in itself something that supports a keep, but should not be used as support for delete either. ++Lar 18:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I know that people here aren't probably going to delete it nor is this going to change peoples views. But this is just to counterpoint some of Lar's claims. I can't see any of those being "artisically significant". If that were so, then every webcomic ever in existance would probable be notable enough for Lar. Simultaneous story threads? Writer anonymity? How is this of artistic significance, it's the internet, lots of things are posted anonymously or through stupid pseduonyms such as Anne Nonymous, and a webcomic to have multiple story threads is just any webcomic which isn't of "gag a day" style. - Hahnchen 00:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if Poor Richard's Almanac were in fact written by some tramp named poor richard, and never actually published, then I'd vote to delete. - Hahnchen 00:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Hahnchen on this: anonymity and and interweaving story telling is not notable, because Greeneyes was not the first to use either. The "Guest writers are themselves noteworthy" is a valid argument, though you'd have to be more specific. Say which guest writers were notable and why. Xuanwu 02:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies, all from Lar:
  • I am not sure that I agree that "people here aren't probably going to delete it nor is this going to change peoples views" as my nose counting shows this a close run thing, it depends on how the admin evaluates the consensus here. Further this discussion may well change the views or influence the views of those yet to express themselves. I know I read what is written before I add my thoughts. So it's good that you are making yourself heard even if I think you're incorrect. (and I tweaked a bit of formatting above, please feel free to untweak it if you did not like what I did)
  • The deletion nomination and several other delete comments refer to the webcomic being on hiatus, or having finished its run. That, in and of itself is not evidence of non-notability. Nor is something currently being published evidence of notability. THAT is the point I was trying to make with the Poor Richard reference, that things that happened in the past can still be notable in an encyclopedia (since wikipedia is not an almanac... THAT must be why my subconscious dredged up the Poor Richard example!). So I think, just as with CxN, just as with so many other AfD nominations I've seen lately (yes, I've been lurking about a bit, you've got my attention now, and you may hear from me again) that using "it just ended" or "it's on hiatus" is a bogus reason for deletion. Argue that it wasn't significant when it was active or that it hasn't had an effect since, but not *merely* that it's in the past. Encyclopedias cover the past as well as the present. If something was significant in the past, that it is over is irrelevant.
  • Simultaneous story threads... Yes, I am aware that many story comics have different threads, sorry for not being clearer. I refer to the fact that several of the "elements" (story chapters) were being worked on at the same time but kept separate, near as I could tell. THAT's the significance I see there, not just interweaved threads in the same story. That's a lot less common in webcomics than just having threads.
  • Guest writers are themeselves noteworthy... see bio. I found them noteworthy. You may not. If you ask me why and I cite their work or the fact that they have different styles, or come from different places, or chose pseudonyms that are interesting, or cite their articles here in support of their noteworthyness, we're in a regress.
  • As pointed out elsewhere, the problem of noteworthiness (er, is it I or Y?) and how to establish it is hard. Webcomics are somewhat loosely linked to highly verifiable sources, it takes a few links from source to source to get to the NYT or Brittania. But Wikipedia is not paper. I am inclusionist. While I would not include every single webcomic that ever had 2 strips published, I would include this one. In fact, I would include most of the ones that have been coming up on AfDs lately. I think the efforts to purge Wikipedia of most webcomics are misguided. Wikipedia is not paper. I am inclusionist.
  • I'll reiterate, I am satisfied with the notability and verifiability that others above me provided as well. You may not agree, which is fine. ++Lar 03:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiability per Friday. Dragonfiend 02:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Absolutely no disadvantages to having this information. The current version of the article is pretty good, and establishes notability and verifiability. Because of that, I assume that this nomination was based on a substantially different earlier version. It's good to see that the wiki process can improve articles this way, but please remember that AfD is not cleanup. (As a side note, I'm glad that the majority of the voters here haven't been fooled by the meaningless red herring of Alexa.) Factitious 06:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Xuanwu has convinced me. Further, notability is not measured in google (or Alexa) hits. -- Taiichi «talk» 11:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Factitious. Good enough. -- JJay 17:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtless[edit]

Thoughtless was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-06. The result of the discussion was "speedy delete". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughtless/2005-09-06.

This is the second nomination; the first, 2 months ago, was for homophobia etc. This page has none of that content; rather, it is not noteable per WP:MUSIC as the band has not yet released an album, etc. Colonel Tom 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete, I am making this for my band, I dont even know why it is being considered for deletion.
  • Delete, per nom. Tom Lillis 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's being considered for deletion because your band is not yet well-known enough to get an encyclopedia article. Please read WP:MUSIC which explains which bands get an article. When you have two albums released by a major label or very well-known independent label, you get an article, for instance. Even then it's considered better to wait for other people to make the article about you, then fix any inaccuracies. I say delete. DanielCristofani 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:NMG. Melbourne band yet to release any records. By the way, the AfD notice is missing and I don't know how to install one for a second nomination. Capitalistroadster 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • template changed again to 2nd nomination. Colonel Tom 04:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -^demon 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable band. Cnwb 04:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 04:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band has not released any albums or singles, been signed by anyone, or even had any gigs apart from performing in school. Furthermore, not only does the article explicitly state that they play in the garage of one of the member's parents, the article even has photographs of all of the band members in said garage. This article therefore fails to satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. However, failing to satisfy the notability criteria isn't the only problem. The article is original research, comprising an obviously firsthand account of the band's history. The place for this is the band's own web site, not Wikipedia. (Ironically, the band has its own web site, but the images are broken and the text is in white on a white background.) Delete. Uncle G 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not satisfy WP:MUSIC--nixie 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete But good luck guys, maybe after a couple of years and a smash album or two we'll see you back. pfctdayelise 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Ambi 04:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's the one saying we haven't played anywhere except school? That's all it says in the history thing. But we have played at many gigs. 3 battle of the bands in 2004, 4 in 2005. We played at push up in the western suburbs. also that image is not in a garage. the ones of us playing are in a garage, but the image of all of us is in an abanodened place where we thought it would be cool to take photos in, and make them look official possibly giving us some credibility. the problem with our site is that all the links are linked to live.com.au but the host moved to music.net.au, they have reset all passwords and thus anyone owning a site with them is unable to access. thus i cannot fix the links until the host resets everyones pw back to normal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtless Band (talk • contribs)
  • What is this? Garage band self promotion week? I'm from the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and my sympathies lie with you, but sorry guys, as for this article - a definite deletion! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I spent a lot of effort on this page, and now all of a sudden its going to be scrapped. I mean, a lot of other pages exist here and are really bad or pointless, why should mine be targetted 10 minutes after its completed, once I've done all the work?Thoughtless Band 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that you've missed the point of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't a free wiki host, for anyone to come along and write articles about themselves, their bands, their schools, and so forth, from firsthand knowledge. It isn't a vanity press or a self-publishing service. It's an encyclopaedia. Everything here must have been published somewhere else first and have been already acknowledged by people and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. If you want to publish a firsthand, previously unpublished, account of your band that incorporates stuff that nobody else knew before, your own web site is the place to do it. You were warned about this before you started the work that you did. You are encouraged to keep contributing to Wikipedia, but please heed the warnings about what is acceptable here before you do. Uncle G 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I acknowledge that you have done a lot of work on the article. Have you thought about alternatives such as MySpace, GeoCities or Google Base which allow for free hosting. Unfortunately, your band doesn't meet our music guidelines as yet although we all wish you well. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as creator might want content to move elsewhere as suggested by Capitalroadmaster. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not userfy and let this hang around forever. If the creator can't be bothered to copy this somewhere else in the week it takes us to delete it, tough cookies. —Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I unilaterally userfied it for them yesterday for the reason subsequently given by KillerChihuahua. I still think that may have been a good idea; "tough cookies" sounds a little like biting the newcomers. DanielCristofani 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Nice job for this kind of page, but it really does belong elsewhere. CarbonCopy 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IanBailey (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the guys who did the page - good luck with your band, and a nice job on the page, but this isn't what Wikipedia is for. We hope you guys want to contribute pages about other, well known bands - there are a list of them here. -- Chuq 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that I keep getting messages about deleting of articles? I havent been doing that, nor would I know how to.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; defaults to keep. Merge may or may not be preferable. Ral315 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Palace (chat site)[edit]

A "talker" community of questionable notability. The assertions of notability made in the article (50 users at once) are fairly weak in and of themselves; we wouldn't let a niche IRC network of 50 users create an article on Wikipedia without exceptional additional circumastances, and I see this as being no different. A positive: the addition of the article seems to have brought several enthusiastic new editors to Wikipedia. The negative: these new editors brought some of the "politics" of the talker with them, and an edit war largely consiting of inneundo and arguing over minutae has commenced. (There's a request for protection in process, amazingly.) So, in short--not notable and somewhat toxic to the community. Tom Lillis 03:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the following addenda to my initial nomination. It would appear that I wasn't sufficiently clear with my reasoning:
1.) The nomination is made as a litmus test regarding the possible scaling back of the unusually large amount of information we have about talkers. The combined material from these articles approaches the size of World War II-- a fact that I find strange.
2.) The size of each individual community suggests to me that, while talkers as a phenomenon are certainly worthy of appropriately thorough documentation, different articles containing exhaustive and complete details these communities is probably not valuable. That is not to say that I don't value completeness--I simply don't believe that the factual material would be appropriately encyclopedic. Continuing...
3.) Much of the factual material seems to consist of the discussion of the internal politics of the talker. The interpersonal machinations of small, little-heard of groups are, as far as I can tell, neither notable nor encyclopedic. If we aren't accepting biographies of local political candidates in jurisdictions many times larger than the entirety of the talker universe, then I can't justify the inclusion of details of the talkers' politics.
4.) Many of the factual claims made in the articles--not just the politics but also some of the statistical information--are almost inherently unverifiable. The politics are without substantive, neutral documentation or significant public record. I suspect that may be additional support for my belief that the material itself is neither substantive nor significant.
5.) A point of policy: the behavior and motivations of the involved editors can, in fact, be used in consideration of whether or not an article should be deleted. I refer you to WP:POINT and other materials relating to "bad faith" edits and bad faith actions. It's one of the Golden Rules of Wikipedia to assume good faith! I always try to assume good faith. But it is extremely difficult to assume good faith when the first actions of a new editor or new editors is to angrily declare expertise and an inalienable right to have the final word on an article based on that declaration. The concept is further strained when that editor quickly defaults to a last-resort administrative procedure--a request for protection--to achieve that final word. It's borderline "gaming the system," which is almost the exact opposite of displaying newcomer traits and casts a pallor of bad faith over the entire affair.
6.) The policies are important, but the golden rule for inclusion is this: "Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?" The answer is no, not unless we were discussing the most esoteric single-subject encyclopedia in existence--"The Encyclopedia of Internet Chat Mechanisms," or something.
My talk page is always open for civil conversation about my editorial motives or the lack thereof. Tom Lillis 10:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I originally created the article as part of my series on the history of talkers, with the asserted notoriety in relation to the conversial elements of this talker. However, in retrospect, having an individual article purely to document controversies is something that I think is probably not a good idea. I have been considering merging the controversies in to Planes of Existence (talker) for some time, as was suggested by a number of users (indeed, some suggested merely documenting important events of talkers in to one article, which has merit). I did try to redirect this article and merge it so as to avoid an edit war, but this did not work and have stopped editing due to the 3RR rule. It seems understandably that the owner of this particular talker does not want to have an article created about them for what they perceive to be an attack page, and there have been irreconcilable issues with regards to resolving its WP:POV. The talker itself asserts no claims to notoriety. Its main page has an alexa rank of over 5 million, it was never the most popular talker in history (indeed, never in the top 10), was not the first to do anything and is not unique in any way. Whilst there are assertions that it was the first to combine talker and muds, this is not true. TinyMUD was in fact the first to do this, in 1989, 7 years before this talker was created, when they created MUSH. Other than the many controversies surrounding this particular talker, it has no assertions to notoriety. I do feel rather sheepish for nominating an article that I created for deletion, but I also feel that this is a good way to resolve disputes and hopefully stop the plague of vandalism that has hit this and related pages in the past few days. I would have suggested merge, but as all of the notable things about this talker are listed elsewhere, there is no longer any point to it. Hence I would like to suggest an outright delete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the creator of this entry created the entry in bad faith. He admitedly never visited the talker, posted very negative POV information (check the very early history of edits, for example!), and he created this without knowledge and permission the owner of the chat. Once the entry was discovered, though, the community has made great strides towards making the page better!Blackcat55 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: There was nothing bad faith about it. It was the 6th talker article that I created, and I included it as a link to the others. Yes, *EARLY* versions were somewhat non-neutral, as I had limited sources. If Crystal Palace had an actual usable website that had information on it, then I would have been able to have done a better job of it. That's not my fault. You must always WP:AGF with everything. If I had created this, as you claim, as an "attack page" then why did nobody notice it before? Why is it that those early edits, which I had 50 people look at, weren't noticed as there being anything wrong with them? And why is it that I went to such lengths to make things as accurate as possible, and to preserve arguments for both sides, if I was trying to make it out as an attack? The reality is that before all of the anon editors came out, it WAS a neutral page. It wasn't a complete page, but it was a neutral page. The reality is that by removing the sourced POV side, they actually made it both WP:NOR original research as well as failing to conform to the WP:POV neutral point of view. This is the problem here. You can't just get it in to a case of "he said she said" kind of nonsense. You have to have actual sources. This is the problem that these new editors don't seem to understand. The article WAS neutral. Now it is nothing but an advertisement and is totally biased. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - crystal palace is just another talker. However, it has survived for over a decade and is perhaps one of the most popular talkers in existence right now. 68.83.85.175 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge -
The other talker pages I referenced before have been merged or deleted (or in the process of such). Therefore, my stance that all these pages should be treated equally requires me to change my vote to 'merge'. For historical purposes, those articles were:
  • Foothills (talker) - which is 1 paragraph long and claims it averages 10-15 users at a time (and is somehow "the 4th most popular in the world" at the same time? How can that be if CP at 50 isn't in the top 10?)
  • Resort (talker) - 1 paragraph and claims "20-40 users online" at any time.
  • Crossroads (chat site) - not especially notable and closed 8 years ago.
  • Lintilla (talker) - much longer article, but only reached "40 users at any one time". Somehow, this claims to be the most popular adult talker of all time, even though Crystal Palace is much more popular today.
  • Ncohafmuta - not especially notable for much of anything at all.
  • Planes of Existence (talker) - although once very popular, for most of its existence had only a handfull of users.
-- Shinmawa 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. While the controversy involved is interesting, and Shinmawa makes a point, I'm going to make a subjective call here and say that regardless of any outside Alexa-ish measures, 50-person concurrency is just not all that impressive. Mo0[talk] 06:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was directed back here to look at new information on the nomination, but I still stand as saying this should be either deleted or merged with other articles on the same topic. If we remove web forums that boast of 500 members, why should we keep a chat room that boasts of 50? It's all about consistency here. Mo0[talk] 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 50 concurrent users, not 50 total users. The owner claims to have over two thousand active users right now, and tens of thousands of unique accounts having been created over its history. 68.83.85.175 15:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa, talk about completely misreading numbers. O_o Point taken. At the same time, though, "having logged in within the past few months" isn't my definition of active. Neopets uses similar logic to inflate their activity numbers. I'm always a bit wary of a site where only 1% of their "active users" are actually online at any given time. It makes the "active users" count feel inflated. Mo0[talk] 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Okay 1) Surfers (talker) is the most popular talker right now, and is the most popular talker of all time, with a peak of over 500 users on at a time (not 50, 500), which is a confirmed fact. 2) Lintilla (talker) had 40 users per talker - 7 talkers means 280 users total, and it also had a large number of spin offs, hence making the community much bigger than one which was just 50. It also had a great influence on other talkers and generally. I just thought that I'd point ou these factually inaccurate assertions that were being made there. Besides which, based on user numbers, lintilla isn't sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. Its notability is with its influence. There is a great consistency with what I did. I merged sleepy's in to lintilla in spite of sleepy's being more popular, because lintilla's claims to notoriety are larger. However, as I said elsewhere, I am more than happy to merge the lot in to one article. Just as long as issues of historical importance aren't wiped. Do you want me to pretend that Surfers didn't steal Foothills code, and that that action created ew-too? Want me to pretend that things like that didn't happen just because you think that it makes things seem nicer? Want me to pretend that these holes didn't exist in the codes? Want me to pretend that nobody noticed them and that the rapid decline of both talkers and user numbers didn't happen, or wasn't based on that? Perhaps you want me to edit the Michael Jackson article and get rid of all of the claims about child molestation too? After all, he was found not guilty, wasn't he? Why should we list it in an encyclopaedia? The answer is very simple - because it made a difference. And because whether you think that Michael Jackson molested those kids or not, the reality is that he really was accused of it, and that it really did influence a lot of things. And, wait, do you want me to go around and say that Adolf Hitler wasn't believed to be responsible for the holocaust? After all, that's not 100% proven either. It might have been Herman Goerring, or someone else. What we have to do with issues like this is to write them, yes, and then present them from an informative point of view. Not including them is just plain silly. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Surfers does not have over 500 users today. By comparison, 'Crystal Palace' is just as popular, and often more so. For proof, simply visit | Surfer user count and | Crystal Palace user count. You will notice that Surfer's peak is barely over half that of Crystal Palace's peak! In fact, on December 5th, 2005, the lowest user count on Crystal Palace is just under half the peak of Surfer's! Looking at the extemely low standard deviation of Surfer's user count (4.3), one could easily suggest that a core group of 20 users connect and remain online throughout the day. By comparison, Crystal Palace's standard deviation of user count (12.4, three times that of Surfer's!) is evident to the fact that users come and go throughout the day and are typically engaged in active conversation. 68.83.85.175 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. And yeah I agree that we need to scale these articles on chat rooms back a bit. Web directory-ish. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This talker is definitely among the most stable and popular talkers in the entire (short) history of talkers, especially out of all of the talkers that Zordrac has written about. If we delete this page, then we should delete a host of entries (see Shinmawa's post above) representing relatively insignificant talkers. 66.101.11.58 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this, and all the others Shinmawa lists, into an appropriate article summarising the various talkers out there. I can see no reason to store all this relatively useless information (per nom), and all the useful information on all these non-notable examples of a notable practice could easily fit into a single article. — Haeleth Talk 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge ALL of these petty talker entries. There's no denying that Crystal Palace is one of the more popular talkers out there (it seems to be the most popular today compared to the other telnet-based talkers 'Zordrac' has written about based on user count statistics gleaned from neutral third parties). Crystal Palace has made an impact on the talker community -- debatable if it's good or bad -- and warrants at least mentioning. If it is to be deleted, it should at least be highlighted somewhere as one of the most popular talkers. Obviously, the more popular the talker, the more vulnerable it is to intertalker politics, baseless allegations, and etc., as is witnissed even here with this talker being absurdly recommended for deletion while many other far less popular talkers have gotten relatively little attention from the community.216.158.57.50 14:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is below threshhold. Eusebeus 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For several reasons.
1.) It has survived and thrived for over a decade as one of the most popular internet telnet chats around.
2.) It combined the ease of talkers with a great roleplaying atmosphere.
3.) Several thousand people have called this talker their home at various points.
4.) To delete this page and not delete all of the other talker pages would be a gross violation of wikipedia's goals.
5.) The talker itself is obviously notable - why else would it draw this much attention in just a few days after this entry was created?

Blackcat55 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as Haeleth suggested. Johnleemk | Talk 09:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Haeleth. Believe that's what I've been getting at all along. Tom Lillis 09:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CP is distinct from most talkers in that it has been around for so long and is strongly supportive of roleplaying. 128.175.215.118 15:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what people fail to recognise here is that a merge means that we are either biased in favour of CP, purely because they advertised people to come here and vote, which isn't the way that Wikipedia's voting process is supposed to work. This is supposed to be votes by neutral people who are not involved in it. The term "meat puppets" is used for this strategy, and ordinarily admins ignore votes made in this manner.

One big reason why not to merge is because CP is equally notable to an awful lot of places. I don't know every talker, but my understanding is that its in the order of 100 which are roughly equally as notable. Why pick one ahead of any other? I could just pluck Ancient Realms out for an example (one that I don't think deserves its own article). Ancient Realms was about from 1992 to 1996, started on ew-too but converted to nuts, and was seen as an ambassador to talkers. It was one of the first talker hosts, predating talker.com by 4 years, but it didn't charge anyone to use its space. It was run on an education server, and worked to educate students, using talkers as a medium. It influenced most of the big talkers that came out afterwards, including Oceanhome, Crossroads and Ncohafmuta. But it was never popular, never having more than 30 or 40 users on at a time. And it closed after just 4 years. The server stayed open until 1998 but without the talker on there (just other people's talkers). In a very technical sense, it was the first ever multiple worlds talker - in the sense that it called all of the talkers on its network "realms". It also used NUTS 3's linking code to link all of the talkers together. Ancient Realms still exists today, in a sense, although the original talker is long gone. It has a MUD, a MUSH and 3 educational talkers, catering for primary school aged kids.

Now that is a talker of equal notoriety to CP. Not notable enough for its own article though.

If we vote "keep" on this, then we have 100 talkers listed. If we vote "merge" then we have the talker page looking longer than anything ever imagined.

Indeed, I don't see how anyone can possibly suggest that CP is more notable than Iron Rose, the forefather of BDSM talkers.

Do we keep going on forever? Or do we appease people just because they happened to come here to vote, and just because they wrote on their message boards to come to wikipedia to vandalise pages and vote to keep this and delete poe. Is that how the process works? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zordrac -- To my knowledge, there have been no, none, zero, zip messages on any message board to either vandalize the pages here or vote one way or the other. There was a single message announcing the page's existence and the thoughts of CP's owner about its veracity (which did NOT include a plea to vandalize the page). There was a followup message by me specifically asking people to NOT vandalize the page. There have absolutely NO OTHER messages regarding this page whatsoever, yet you continue to make these accusations all over Wikipedia. A far more likely scenario is this: People have been getting the old announcements as they log in. Its probable that these people didn't see the original announcement until days after it was made since a lot of people don't come online every day. They go to the web address in the announcement (the link to the article's main page). At the TOP of that page, in bold letters is the mention of the AFD and a link to THIS page. It doesn't take much to see that those people are simply clicking on the provided link and voting. This does NOT, repeat NOT, mean there's any orchestrated effort to get anyone to vote one way or the other. Unless you have some actual proof (like the text of such an announcement and where it can be found), I must request that you immediately cease these bad faith accusations. I'm NOT saying that these people who came here only to vote should be given equal treatment. They, of course, should not. I'm only saying that, to my knowledge, they are not coming here because they were told to vote. -- Shinmawa 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you actually deny it now? There were quite a few users who admitted it in messages on Wikipedia. This is ridiculous that you deny something that is admitted. Besides which, even if what you claim is true, advertising for this AFD on the talker itself says very clearly the intention. It is an orchestrated attack, of the kind that often happens in talkers. "Out of loyalty to Crystal Palace, do what is right" is effectively what is being said. Your claims are ludicruous. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My only claim is that other than the messages which I described above, I personally not seen any messages regarding this article. I've not seen a single message that does anything like you describe. My inclination is that YOU haven't seen any either. I've also not seen any of these admissions of which you speak. Therefore, my claims are NOT ludicrous, unless you are now claiming to be an expert on what I have and haven't seen. If you can provide concrete examples, I'll look into it. However, all you've done is make accusations without any evidence. I'm asking you to either provide some evidence (such as an actual message or a location where one can be found), or cease making accusations. -- Shinmawa 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not being at all fair, Zordy. I said there was no encourgement by anyone to vandalize anything that I've seen and you've yet to produce any evidence of such. I'm not defending anyone's vandalism. -- Shinmawa 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 15:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  16:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, last version edited by me, prior to vandalism etc, was this one [15]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I'd point that out so that it is *CRYSTAL CLEAR* to all voters that the article, prior to changes made by anons, was neutral. It was incomplete, and some things were not 100% factual. Whilst I appreciate the improvements with that regards, it has changed from something that was neutral to something that is a blatant advertisement. They also got rid of all claims to notoriety. Whilst the article as I wrote it did have claims to notoriety, the article as it stands now does not. That is it quite simply. Their user levels are insufficient to claim notoriety per Wikipedia standards. The controversies are sufficiently notable. If they want us to pretend that the controversies didn't happen, then that's fine, but then the article can't exist. Simple as that. There's no debate about this. No current talkers are sufficiently notable for their own article. And ridiculous notions such as CP being "the most popular talker of all time" are just stupid. Unless they had 1,000 users on at once for 4 years, they are no competition to the top 3. Its very biased POV editing with no concept of fact or reality. A lot of talkers have been written about in the media. A lot have been the subject of newspaper articles and PC Gamer magazine and the like. But CP has not. Lintilla has, Surfers has, Resort has, Foothills has. CP has not. It can't get much simpler than that really. And this whole thing has turned in to a whole "my talker is better than yours" incident which is just plain stupid.

The very definition of meat puppets is what has happened here. There was one initial editor, who was genuine, and he then got a bunch of others to come along to help out. Ergo, they cannot be considered to be neutral, and they should be considered to all be one voice, per the standards in meat puppets and sock puppets guidelines. Now, if neutral people honestly feel that this needs to be kept, then that is another matter entirely. When I wrote it I thought that it might not be suitably notable, and it turns out I was right. Not to mention that the guy who owns the talker doesn't even have a real web page, and doesn't want anyone to write anything about him at all (The entire point to this bunch of attacks on me and this article). Other than how this talker has affected others, which is solely in relation to the controversies, there is absolutely zero influence on anything. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was to redirect to Rexford Guy Tugwell, merging useful external link. Rholton 05:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rexford G. Tugwell[edit]

This article lacks substance and relevance. Snorgenhorpher 03:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied-CSD A3 -Rholton 05:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also created the redirect and merged the link into Rexford Guy Tugwell. -Rholton 05:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable -- hopefully this is the last one I catch; if there are more, please let me know) --Nlu 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chan[edit]

It does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. The page seems like something made up by the club, which this high school kid belongs to, as a way to advertise the club. 169.231.1.49 03:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a far better nomination than just a bare "non-notable". Take note, pseudonymous users! 169.231.1.49 is showing you up.

    Having said that, this person appears to have been the president not of a school club, but of a nationwide student political organization, the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union. As such, there might well be significant press coverage of this person, depending from how newsworthy his political activities were. If so, then he would satisfy the criteria. Uncle G 04:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. The organization seems to have only about 150 individual members (not counting student associations which hold organizational memberships). --Metropolitan90 04:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The National Union of Students of Australia doesn't have many members when student organizations are discounted, either. That argument doesn't hold very much water. Uncle G 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't really understand that argument, either. The organization itself is certainly notable (or at least I'm not questioning it now). What I question is the value of having an encyclopedia article on every kid who has ever held a position in it. Note the other related AfD nominations. Should we condense these into one? If so, how? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:48:39Z
Some of the people who have ever held office in such organizations are notable. Consider Penny Wong, Brian Greig, Roslyn Dundas, Jaye Radisich, and Penny Sharpe, for examples. Furthermore, people who currently hold such an office are notable if they have made enough political waves to have received significant press coverage, which is certainly possible for people who hold such an office. (They'd also qualify if someone else had written a book, published a paper in a journal, or produced a mainstream television documentary about them. But those are far less likely.) So the question to answer is: Is that the case for any of these people? Those for whom it is, should be kept. This does involve researching each one. Uncle G 07:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was exactly my point. I have read each article in this series, and they're each non-notable. They're all basically of the form, "So and so headed this club, then this club, and went to such and such university after graduation." No mention of any "political waves". I think just about every person in my graduating class could have an article about themselves if that's the bar. ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 08:36:36Z
  • Unless there is anything indicating notability for activity outside the organization, delete each one. The nominations should have been merged, and for the purposes of discussion/vote, my stand is for each of the individual Hong Kong student articles that have been nominated for deletion today, and I hope an admin combines them and closes them together. B.Wind 09:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. --Bachrach44 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Silensor 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, otherwise merge into Hong Kong Secondary Students Union. Enochlau 04:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the decision is to delete, merge and redirect to HKSSU. — Instantnood 07:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason is discrimating students and bakers. I can't really accpet the decision of the administrators. This is what I want to say to the author of the topics:

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 219.78.21.252 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Site of Hong Kong Student Leaders Biographies will replace the Wikipedia infomation soon. by Original Author of the articles, TonySapphire
  • Strong Delete, seems to be a group of students who keep creating this pointless vanity pages for themselves. dr.alf 11:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was tardy speedy keep. AfD is not the place to go for merges; anyone who participated in this AfD is free to merge at their leisure. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dori Duz[edit]

Suggest that this article be merged to Catch-22 Snorgenhorpher 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please only bring articles to Articles for deletion that you actually want to be deleted. Merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G 04:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great idea. Just merge and redirect. If you don't know how to do it, you can leave me or Uncle G a message. You can do so (to me) by clicking "talk" in my signature. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect is great: she's too minor a character in the novel. Nately's Whore is more of a character. (She has a name, but I've forgotten it.) Geogre 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the Dori Duz article, but she's such a minor character there's no point in having her own article. Delete if you like. BTW, Nately's whore's name is never mentioned in the book. Yossarian's first name is only mentioned twice. Czolgolz 13:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable) --Nlu 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Ng[edit]

This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. - 169.231.1.49 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete These biographies are of some non-notable students involved in a non-notable student union/organisation. They are simply unencyclopedic dr.alf 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How are they non-notable? — Instantnood 11:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. One of a whole list of presidents and vice-presidents of a student union. As to being non-notable : See Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. JoJan 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Jojan. --Pamri • Talk 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable) --Nlu 22:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Kam Lun[edit]

This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. 169.231.1.49 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chan. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 08:44:04Z
  • Keep because the article was not written because of their personality of students but as a leader of an organization. TonySapphire 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he is a leader of a notable organisation, then mention him in that particular organisation's article. Simply being the leader of a notable organisation does not mean that the person themselves is notable and deserves an article of their own. Please read the criteria for inclusion of biographies. dr.alf 11:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Silensor 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the decision is to delete, merge and redirect to HKSSU. — Instantnood 07:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason is discrimating students and bakers. I can't really accpet the decision of the administrators. This is what I want to say to the author of the topics:

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 219.78.21.252 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Another HKSSU bandwagon vanity page. As I mention above, simply being the leader of an organisation that is unknown outside of Hong Kong does not mean the person is notable. The article fails to point out what the person has done that is so extraordinary as to warrant an article outside the main HKSSU one. dr.alf 11:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson avellone[edit]

Bio of an apparently non-notable Canadian artist whose work appears to appear primarly (or only?) on the web; in about 45 google results for "Crimson avellone" I see little indication of notability. Delete. Bikeable 04:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Vanity. So what's the criteria for notability of an artist? An exhibition at a reputable gallery? Artwork selling in the five figure range? — RJH 16:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably vanity, void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor[edit]

This article has been created and deleted several times, but never put through afd. Could afd voters decide once and for all if this is encyclopedic content please. --nixie 04:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add the article was written by its subject, so if kept it needs fact check and NPOVing.--nixie 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'm not 100% convinced that he's "notable enough" (whatever that means), but in a borderline case, I'd prefer that we let the article stay. -Rholton 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It usually means that the subject satisfies one or more of our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. In this case, as with other autobiographies (Looking at earlier versions of this article, that are written in the first person by the same author, confirms what Petaholmes says about this having been written by its subject.), that means verifying the information supplied using sources other than the subject. If it turns out that there is independent corroboration that this person is indeed a published author of three widely read books (at least one of which is also the subject's own autobiography, it is claimed), then this person satisfies those criteria. However, Amazon doesn't have them listed, and whilst ABC Bookworld does, it tells us that they are published by "The Punks Entertainment". Given that that is the name of the subject's own web site, it appears that these books were either published by a vanity press or self-published. The subject certainly fails to satisfy the criteria for politicians even according to this autobiography, having apparently never actually won an election (see also Freedom Party of British Columbia). Uncle G 05:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It turns out that at least two of the books are autobiographies. Uncle G 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd say the fact that neither keillor.ca nor the punks.com have any Alexa traffic data, and that his name only shows up on a Google search 413 times mostly due to the apparent hoarding he does of his websites all over the internet, means he isn't notable enough for Wikipedia...or at least that's my vote. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since UncleG has done the hard work, there in nothing encyclopedic about a self-publishing falied political candidate.--nixie 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some claims to notability but not nearly enough to meet WP:BIO. Besides, "I know virtually every Postmaster in B.C. and Alberta and you are the most articulate Postmaster I have met across fully two provinces" could possibly go on BJAODN. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV nn hero worship. The newspaper clippings cited above are insufficient to indicate otherwise. It doesn't help that the nomination seems vandalized. B.Wind 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Speedy delete and protect if recreated. -- Kjkolb 08:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the basis of his founding a political party moreso than the other material. Needs clean-up. Once someone enters politics that makes them fair game to be featured in an encyclopedia, etc. 23skidoo 14:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a public figure. (And is this AfD history ever a mess...original nominator obscurred by unsigned comments at th top, and some discussion has been removed.) CarbonCopy 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He's notable, he gets 33,000 Google hits by my count. He's verifiable. The article, as it stands, is an abysmal mess - but that's a matter for cleanup not deletion. Ifnord 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. One must actually read the pages that Google finds. If you found a source of information about this person that isn't from the person himself with your Google search, please tell us what it is. The things that Google turns up for me are either things sourced directly from the subject or things that provide nothing more about the subject than what we already have in British Columbia general election, 2005 and Freedom Party of British Columbia. If you didn't find such a source, please explain how you propose that content for this article could be obtained and verified, other than by parroting the subject's (several) autobiographies. Uncle G 04:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this page has been deleted six times already. maclean25 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just getting absurd. Four or five different Wikipedia editors (including, for full disclosure, myself) have previously considered this article speedyable, and yet it keeps coming back. {{deleteprotect}}. Bearcat 00:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Tom 00:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again). Perhaps a protected redirect to the Freedom Party page. If not protected, the redirect can be easily reverted if re-created. --maclean25 05:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have re-written it to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Please review the article and reconsider your vote. He founded a minor political party, he has written books, and he was a postmaster! (Well, two out of three make him worthy of a bio here.) I have deleted all of the adulatory quotations, which have no place here. The books are legitimate: see B.C Bookworld author profile. Ground Zero | t 18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Valiant attempt. The main contributor to the page has been User:70.69.206.159 who is Keillor himself. From what I see there is nothing partcularly notable about him outside the political party thing (the books at best put me into the neutral column). Since the political party seems to be based around his views and opinions much of his bio should be in the party's article. I still feel it is best to concentrate on the party's article than this one. Also, I'd like to point you to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Articles to improve#Articles to clean-up for a whole list that you can put those clean-up skills to work on. --maclean25 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make a protected Redirect to Freedom Party of British Columbia. I would say Merge, but (1) that's work for somebody and (2) it just means that that article will become the subject of hijinks. Look, they guy ran for office twice, got 217 votes (1.5%) and then 195 votes (1%). That's just... my dog could do that. Besides that, who needs it? Who needs all the nonsense associated with this? Having to deal with this guy makes Wikipedia weaker by diverting resources that could be used on improving real articles. Herostratus 19:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: He appears to meet the following criterion for inclusion: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." While we don't know that his books have sold that many, nor do we know that they have not. The fact that he has published three books that are included in the National Library of Canada, and that he has a profile on BC Bookworld as noted above, suggests to me that he meets the criterion. The fact that the article has been subject to vandalism is not, to me, a valid criterion for deletion. The Canada article is vandalized frequently, too. Vandalism can be addressed through page protection if necessary. I note also that his recent edits have not been vandalism. I think, and I may be wrong, that he is starting to get what this is about. Ground Zero | t 13:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Canada

[http://amicus.nlc-bnc.ca/aaweb-bin/aamain/itemdisp?sessionKey=999999999_142&l=0&lvl=1&v=0&itm=17478683&rt=1&bill=1

NAME(S):*Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953- 

        TITLE(S): Post mortem : an affidavit, a resume, an autobiography 
                   / by Kenneth Montgomery Keillor
       PUBLISHER: Abbotsford, B.C. : K.M. Keillor Pub., c1996.
     DESCRIPTION: 1 v. (unpaged) : ill. ; 29 cm.

         NUMBERS: Canadiana:  980054370    
                  ISBN:  0968140602
  CLASSIFICATION: LC Class no.:  HE6654*
                  Dewey:  383 13]

[http://amicus.nlc-bnc.ca/aaweb-bin/aamain/itemdisp?sessionKey=999999999_142&l=0&lvl=1&v=0&itm=20658240&rt=1&bill=1

NAME(S):*Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953- 

        TITLE(S): The clawing tree : an autobiography / Kenneth 
                   Montgomery Keillor
       PUBLISHER: Abbotsford, BC : K.M. Keillor Pub., 1999.

         NUMBERS: Canadiana:  999005596    
                  ISBN:  0968140661 : $69.95
  CLASSIFICATION: LC Call no.:  FC3849 A32 Z49 1999
                  Dewey:  971.1/04/092 21]

        SUBJECTS: Keillor, Kenneth Montgomery, 1953-
                  British Columbia--Biography


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Derzon[edit]

An apparent vanity page. -Rholton 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Might still be under construction, but while I Am Not A Crystal Ball, based on the current content I can't see it becoming any more worthy of inclusion.Colonel Tom 04:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Painfully non-notable. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and JHMM13. KillerChihuahua 14:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 biography with no assertion of notability. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Sheola[edit]

Just 78 Google hits and it seems to be written by either Noah Sheola himself or one of his friends, judging by the NPOV comments. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - vanity. B.Wind 06:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. — JIP | Talk 12:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, for future reference if there is an article in AfD but is also labeled speedy by someone else, could I speedy it? - RoyBoy 800 07:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you need a general concensus for that. If you get some 5 speedy votes, and a handful of delete votes, speedying may be a valid option, but often it's best to simply let the AFD run its course. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan.ed.will[edit]

This was improperly marked for speedy deletion. Fails the Google test for those who care; no results on the AMG; fails all of the WP:MUSIC criteria I'm capable of easily checking. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:21:32Z

  • Delete as above. Colonel Tom 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's too soon to tell whether they're destined for greatness or not. We can recreate the article when they're famous. — Haeleth Talk 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page created by a band which was formed a few months ago. --Mecanismo 15:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Moody[edit]

Doesn't seem to be very notable as an individual. If we lived in the day when the Socialist Party was a viable national organization that elected Congressmen and produced brilliant leaders like Debs, being the president of the party's youth auxiliary maybe would be inherently notable. However, we live in a day when anything to the left of the Democrats has no chance in hell at meaningful political power. He should be mentioned in the YPSL article, but that's about all. —Sesel 05:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the deal with "Source - personal interview" and no link? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article really was constructed by going to the subject directly and interviewing xem, then it is original research, and would require readers to do the same thing in order to verify it. Uncle G 05:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, whose opinions on the subject are most palatable. :) --Merovingian 05:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A high school "activist"? Even if it were a larger party he still wouldn't be notable or worthy of a page. When he wins his first congressional election, then we'll think about it. --Bachrach44 16:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PJM 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable) --Nlu 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Shui[edit]

Yet another article for the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union about a non-notable person working for a notable organization. Put a list of members on the main article's page and spare us all of the mini-bios, please! Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:33:41Z

See relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chan. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 08:44:08Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable) --Nlu 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Hiu Ping[edit]

Yet another article for the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union about a non-notable person working for a notable organization. Put a list of members on the main article's page and spare us all of the mini-bios, please! Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:37:25Z

See relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chan. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 08:44:09Z
  • Keep The reason is discrimating students and bakers. I can't really accpet the decision of the administrators. This is what I want to say to the author of the topics:

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Threescore[edit]

Dictionary definition. "Score" is already listed at Wiktionary. There is no need for separatte entries for three score, four score, etc. Delete —Brim 05:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent PC Review[edit]

non-noteable, poor Alexa rating (25000), wholey unencylopedic. Does not meet suggested critereon in WP:WEB

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn vanity page by Lucky 6.9

BABSG[edit]

Formed this year, non-notable, sounds like 3 or 4 guys that hang out. No evidence of notability. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleting as vanity. This is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Winbrush[edit]

Intro says that there's no written record of this dude, which I inferr to mean that this is original research. Could be wrong though... 68.39.174.238 06:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless it can be backed up with references, delete. Actually, this would be a pretty good article if it could be verified and wikified. Documented oral history is not original research, but the devil here is in the documentation. B.Wind 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inselkampf[edit]

9000 registered users, of which many are not active, (says so on the page) is not even remotely notable for an online game. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable large online game -- Kafuffle 10:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you like to explain how a game with 9000 registered players, many of which never even touched the game, is a notable large online game? An alexa ranking of 210,890 is quite low, to say the least. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa rank for German version of the game is 210,890.
  • Keep notable also as a simple-looking, text-base game that still attracts thousands of active players (even more in the German version). Can be played eg. with a cell phone too because of the simple looks. --TJ 21:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The main issue is vandalism and some very bad edits recently - please review your proposal in light of the reverted version! In support of the entry:
  1. This is a relatively popular online game,
  2. having browsed other games in the same category, this is more popular than many of the other’s listed.
  3. In terms of resource use this entry is just a bit of ascii, no pictures and its not like there’s much else with the same name.
  4. Having read the wikipedia rules on entries and commented on the odd deletion myself, the only basis for removing this would be under ‘notability’. If 4 - 5000 people are active in this - that’s the size of a small town…
  5. Inactive players are deleted periodically, therfore 9000 represents many more.
  6. Many external sites use wiki as a source and will use this entry, many people who have heard of the game may wish to view it to find out more,
  7. is there any way of seeing how many ‘hits’ is had?
  8. other evidence are the ebay auctions for items in the game and a site site devoted entirely to in game news, which i shall add to the entry.
  9. in conclusion: why on earth would you want to delete this?

In response to the above, point for point:

  1. 210,890 alexa ranking is not considered notable.
  2. If those pages are non-notable, they should be deleted as well. Not an excuse for this to remain.
  3. The amount of resources this page takes does not matter; it being non-notable does.
  4. It's considered very non-notable for a forum/online game.
  5. Unverifiable.
  6. Wikipedia is not an outlet for advertising.
  7. Alexa.
  8. I can sell my underwear on Ebay. Notable?
  9. In conclusion: Non-notable.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!

- Reponse again

  • The point was not to advertise the game but to inform and comment on a community and another one of those strange ways that humans entertain themselves.
  1. Im not sure how alexa works but if its the 210,000th most popular site out of however many millions then ...? The co.uk site is only a portal to the .de servers. The guidelines on notability say for those outside the top 100,000 "The intermediate area is a grey area where opinions differ", and this is'nt just about a website - you cant base its notability solely on number of hits.
  2. That is *my main concern*; the precedent this makes, if this is'nt notable than quite alot of other things i've seen are'nt either. That is the beauty of wiki, its not a printed encyclopaedia its a fantastic resource with where people can find out often *very* niche things. 5000 is about 15% of the population of Lichtenstein and bigger than a lot of places I’ve lived, which have entries btw.
  3. Above… really I cant stress this more, this isn’t a book it’s a ever changing organic collection of information that anyone can add too, within the context of wiki it clearly IS notable
  4. in your opinion - I will research some similar cases if I find the time
  5. not at all, do the maths - if there is a constant level of 9000 (verifiable) with some leaving or inactive, and therefore being deleted about once a month and those representing about 4000 players in any given month (verifiable) with the game having started about 12 months ago (verifiable) that’s between a conservative 29,000 and an optimistic 53,000 (based on frequency of deletions)
  6. Yes - well aware of that. Maybe my point was not made very clearly, check out ukremovals.co.uk, or dictionaryofeverything.com or absoluteastronomy.com, all of these sites use parts of wiki as their sources.
  7. I meant the wiki entry itself - given the number of unique editors I’d say the number of viewers is respectable.
  8. I doubt you could sell your underpants on ebay for much money though… cheap shot. Secondly an inselkampf account just got sold for GB£300.
  9. In conclusion: notable enough for retention
  • Delete. Per Миборовский. Must add, from it's history, it is the most vandalised article I have yet seen.--Dakota t e 22:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A3) (particularly since author's other edit is spam as well) --Nlu 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Online Casino BTDino[edit]

Advertising Swamp Ig 06:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No where near anything suggested in WP:WEB. This might even be speedy HackJandy 10:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio. -Splashtalk 23:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia b[edit]

Non-notable artist. Vanity. Delete —Brim 07:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to have been created by the artist herself. Delete for vanity page. Bmdavll talk 08:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity page. Colonel Tom 10:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - several edits by artist herself. Clearly vanity. B.Wind 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per B.Wind. Stifle 10:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The page creator blanked the speedy deletion tag in this edit. Stifle 18:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Silensor 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 expansion/rewrite; nomination withdrawn. BD2412 T 16:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz[edit]

No real content except for what was copypasted directly from Fibonacci numbers. 70.110.14.164 07:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible keep! Prusinkiewicz is a well-known mathematician. I own at least one of his books. I'll see what I can add to the article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 08:48:24Z
  • Expand and keep - subject is notable in the field of number theory; the stub doesn't do him justice. B.Wind 09:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable mathematician as stated above. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, HorsePunchKid did a good job in turning the nominated version into a good stub. Since the reasons for the nomination do not apply any more, maybe the article can be speedy kept? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - well above the notable professor curve. I've added a little biographical detail, but a date and place of birth would be nice, and perhaps a list of significant publications. I've dropped a note on the nominator's page asking him to reconsider the nom in light of this progress. BD2412 T 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Well done to Horsepunch Kid and BD2412 for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as nominator due to the expansion. 70.110.14.164 16:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right magazine[edit]

Aside from the fact that whatever minimal amount of content this article's got is POV, the website, or at least I'm assuming right-magazine.com is their website, gets no love from Alexa. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Gonzalez[edit]

This was nominated for deletion previously a couple of months ago, but it appears the nomination was never closed properly. Instead of closing it myself, I thought the proper thing to do would be to relist it. Gamaliel 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable local official, just in charge of a campus police department at a small school. Gamaliel 07:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I second that motion. Don't know who else would have written this - it's a puff piece by someone who doesn't even work at New College any longer and has a side-job trying to sell defense pamphlets from his own website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.40.76 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep A well known criminologist and public servant in Florida. BTW, I know who wrote it. The author had no relation to Gonzalez. Pincus 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some links or evidence which substantiates that he is a well known criminologist? Gamaliel 16:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also say this should be deleted. Are we going to give a page to every official, and former official, at small colleges like New College? This is a no brainer. Nsb3000 04:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reiko Mouryou and Contemplating Reiko[edit]

Alexa ranking of 397,346, and no other claims to notability. While it may not be self-promotion, it seems promotional. Locke Cole 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete for now. —Locke Cole 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be a non-notable webcomic; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, delete and suggest that the author consider Comixpedia instead. — Haeleth Talk 14:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Taintedink has made assertions of notability that I'm not confident of my ability to judge. Revoking my vote pending further evidence and expert opinions. I will say that I don't think two articles are needed - if the verdict is to keep Contemplating Reiko, I would think that Reiko Mouryou should probably be merged into it per WP:FICT's recommendation that individual articles be reserved for world-famous cultural icons. — Haeleth Talk 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contemplating Reiko is a long-running comic often in the top fifteen if not the top ten highest ranking web comics on such sites as Buzzcomix.net, Top Webcomics, and The Webcomics List. Contemplating Reiko has also made an appearance in the immensely popular Neurotically Yours series and been published in Zoinks magazine and Lollipop magazine. Why is it then considered "Non-notable"? This Wikipedia entry has also been up since July with no complaints until recent expansion on the entry. If it seems "promotional" then a rewording of offending text seems more appropriate than deletion. -Taintedink 18:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two magazines I've never heard of and at least one comic ranking site that seems to be a haven for self promoters (specifically with Buzzcomics.net, I note that Penny Arcade doesn't even break the top 100 on their list; but then maybe there's something I missed). If you'd like me to reconsider my vote, give some sources for this notability that aren't biased or are themselves notable. —Locke Cole 19:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The publication details are verifiable: the comic has indeed appeared in both claimed magazines. Zoinks is a new 'zine devoted to printing webcomics; it's published two issues so far, and it's unclear how selective they are or what their circulation is. However, Lollipop is a more significant concern - it's been running for over five years, and claims a circulation of 30,000, which is pretty good for a 'zine so far as I know. If I'm reading their gallery correctly, they've printed 48 cartoons by the author of Contemplating Reiko. I'm honestly not sure whether that compensates for this comic's relatively weak online presence.

        Taintedink, from your username it seems probable that you have direct connections with the comic. If that's the case, would you happen to be able to provide more information on its popularity? For example, traffic figures for the site that aren't distorted by Alexa's bias towards non-techie users might reveal greater popularity than is currently apparent. Review WP:WEB for the guidelines we normally follow for inclusion - though they are only guidelines rather than strict policies, you could tip the scales in the comic's favour by demonstrating that it has notability equivalent to anything on that page. — Haeleth Talk 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable for being published outside the web and for the Neurotically Yours cameo. I think it's safe to keep this given the current form of WP:WEB that's being bandied about. Xuanwu 06:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I do support the idea of putting the info on Reiko into the comic page, as this is keeping with WP:WEB's policy on trying to remain parsiminous with the number of pages devoted to a single thing. Xuanwu 06:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contemplating Reiko, Merge and Redirect Reiko Mouryou in to Contemplating Reiko. I'll accept that the comic may be notable for the above cited reasons, but I still don't believe it's notable enough to warrant articles for individual characters (even the lead). Besides, as the comic article is fairly short, I think expanding it with the lead characters info would prove useful. (As an example of why I don't believe the lead should have an article– as far as I know Gabe and Tycho of Penny Arcade don't have their own articles). —Locke Cole 07:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This seems logical and fair. Merging the two will expand the length of the stub. -Taintedink 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and merge both articles.Rvalles 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Taintedink and Xuanwu. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GuiaFe.com.ar[edit]

Not notable portal site of little importance. Directory of 1330 pages in Santa Fe Province, Argentina. Should be deleted as per Advertising or vanity Mariano(t/c) 07:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Commercial advertising, useful but not encyclopedic. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cab Calloway School of the Arts[edit]

An article with no valuable content but trivia. Gtabary 08:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Gtabary 08:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how the information contained within this article can be useful to anyone. Seems like boring statistics to me. Aucaman 09:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This school has really piqued my interest. Silensor 08:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the WP:SCH proposal, as we should for all schools. In this case, that means merge with the school's district article, since this does not meet the lower bar of three complete sentences, verifiable from sources not published by the school, and excluding phone-book type data like the school's address. — Haeleth Talk 14:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Whether on its own or merged into an article, those data holds no value. Nothing more than directory data. I will not salvage or help this article. I consider it a waste of time to even let it in WP. I am aware about the running debate around notability and schools. Unfortunately, no outcome yet. So I still see from time to time those immensly idiot (sorry it's very POV) schools article. And seldom I afd one of them. Gtabary 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SCH unless improved.AndyJones 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this content is important too Yuckfoo 00:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge with district per WP:SCH as an act of good faith.Gateman1997 19:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 22:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

Amitai shenhav contains only abuse and has been deleted before. It should be speedied. I've tagged it such, but the tag was removed. I've tagged it again. Just in case the tag goes again, this. Ben Aveling 08:19, 5 December 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra's reality[edit]

Appears to be the text of a recent speech at an unidentified summit. Delete as nn, unless much greater context and explanation is given to justify. Dvyost 08:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no context, reads like a newsreader's script instead of an encyclopedia article. B.Wind 09:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transcript of some meeting, not an article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads to me like something midway between a political rant and a partisan news article. Either way, it does not belong in an encyclopedia that values NPOV. While I might give it the benefit of doubt under some conditions, the title suggests an intent to create bias. I am further influenced by the observation that the article's creator vandalized Wikipedia:Guide to deletion rather than participate in a substantive discussion here. Rossami (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scams of Ed, Edd n Eddy[edit]

A list of cartoon scams does not an article make. Suggest deletion. 69.236.184.108 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Ed, Edd n Eddy; failing that, delete. B.Wind 09:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, and remove wikilink from main article. There doesn't appear to be a way to condense this information and fit it into the main space. Saberwyn 09:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about a table and deleting the episode guide? After another look at the already unwieldy main page (the episode guide is better suited for another forum), I must agree. It's a shame as a table would work better, but there would still be problems. Reluctant delete B.Wind 09:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful fancruft. --Apostrophe 23:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Roboticists[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Dvyost 08:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - formed last month, first CD within last two weeks? Too early for sufficient notability. B.Wind 09:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:MUSIC. Colonel Tom 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too promotional for me. Daniel Case 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's good music. I say keep. Rob Jones 19:19, 5 December 2005 (EST)
Comment: "Good" does not equal "encyclopedic." Go to Wikipedia:Notability and Music Guidelines, as per the above post. They don't make the cut. Daniel Case 03:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pylons[edit]

vanity page

  • Delete - vanity page JoJan 09:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity, fails WP:NMG. — Haeleth Talk 14:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although maybe it should be kept for posterity (with names and links removed) to illustrate the epitome of a vanity article. Bill shannon 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was iffy about this, because there is a band called The Pylons that gets airplay on CBC Radio Three...but a quick check of that band's profile here confirms that they're not even the same bunch. Delete, with the proviso that if somebody subsequently writes up a ska band from Toronto, evaluate that on its own merits and don't speedy on "recreation of deleted content" grounds, because it won't be the same band. Bearcat 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Producing hits lik Rock Sound (tentative title)". Neat trick, that -- first make the song a hit, then come up with a title. Herostratus 19:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page. --Mecanismo 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genitic composition of man[edit]

Short article that is essentially a table listing facts that are already mentioned in other articles. Not encyclopedic in itself. Can be merged with another article, but I'm not sure where's the best place for it to go. Perhaps under sex assignment or somewhere in the sex article. —Brim 09:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article less than an hour old at time of AfD has serious typo problems and is in serious need of clean-up. It doesn't help that one of the typos occurs in the name of the article. Delete and hope that the author tries again, this time tying it into sex assignment or gender instead. B.Wind 10:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. material about X and Y chromosomes and hermaphrodites is already sufficiently covered elsewhere and this title isn't helpful as a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. — RJH 16:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Andros[edit]

unecyclopedic nonsense, nn--MONGO 09:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedily if possible - producers of syndicated radio programs aren't generally notable enough for inclusion, but the real problems for this article are the unencyclopedic POV ("Dan is currently the best person to ever live" ... "I am also sad to repert that since the game was so unattainable..."). If it's not vanity, it seems like hero worship. B.Wind 10:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Silensor 22:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Sample: “He is survived by his wife and daughter, although he is still alive.” ◎DanMS 23:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, note changes.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.224.190.212 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above contributor, 71.224.190.212, is one of the major contributors to the article and has also removed the AFD tag twice. ◎DanMS 17:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect to RuneScape. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Xplorer[edit]

This seems to be an article about a program for use with the online game RuneScape. It doesn't seem very notable for me. --Ixfd64 10:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • RuneScape is long, but I don't think merging and redirecting 1 or 2 lines into it hurts much. If it needs to be cut, it's lengthy lists of characters or game history that needs to be moved out in a subarticle. Moving out a stub won't help decrease its length. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect I guess, per above. --Syrthiss 14:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. Intial creator blanked the article and mentioned they made a spelling error. It should've been Waking Life. Since walking and waking are two different words, I'm not leaving a redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Life[edit]

Not confident enough to speedy delete this, but it appears to be a highly non-notable movie and the article is not expandable due to lack of context. Stifle 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffery M. Allen[edit]

Non-notable: page describes subject as a struggling artist yet to achieve wide-scale acknowledgement. May be vanity/advertising - page also gives link to artist's gallery. Also, information largely duplicated on Jere Allen. Humansdorpie 10:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AF1RL[edit]

Non-notable webcruft belonging to a random forum. If the forum turns out to be notable, merge this page to it, otherwise delete. Stifle 10:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per CSD A1. It was a sentence fragment. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solution Architecture Center[edit]

I'd like to put this in speedy deletion as nonsense, but then I'm not well up on management-speak so I realize it may not make sense. Stifle 10:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Daws[edit]

Deleted at request of subject -- do not reinstate 82.3.239.4 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; what the subject requests is irrelevant. Note that the content of the article has been deleted, and can be found here. Beside, I do not see any proof that 82.3.239.4 is the subject of the article. The section Personal should be deleted (wholly or mostly) as unverifiable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the, uh, irregular nomination, this should be deleted per WP:BIO. A junior research fellowship, even at Oxford, is not "more notable than the average college professor". — Haeleth Talk 14:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. CarbonCopy 22:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Master[edit]

Unverifiable [16]. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable fancruft about a single application of common phrase. KillerChihuahua 15:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Aucaman 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jetabroad[edit]

Advertising, and not a specially notable internet travel agency Zeimusu | Talk page 12:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other New Zealand flag concepts[edit]

This title seems quite inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I was planning to move it, but then wondered whether the content was worth having anyway. There are three flag proposals in the article. Flag concepts for the South Island (which the "other" refers to) includes a proposal which was seen a bit of use, but there is no indication that these flags have been used at all. So I am not sure whether to move or delete. JPD (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be inclined to delete, myself - and I speak as the designer of one of the flags shown. The North island flag hasn't been used, the Ross Dependency flag is more of an art project (though it has appeared in Ross Dependency), and there is already a flag for Stewart Island (though it's never used) and it's not the one shown. I really don't see much point in having this page on Wikipedia. If we're going to open up pages for all "proposed but not adopted" flag designs then we'll run out of pixels. It's the flag equivalent of failing WP:MUSIC for having an album that's planned but never released. I also wouldn't be at all alarmed if Flag concepts for the South Island was deleted, since the only design on that page which has seen any use has seen pretty minimal use and is unlikely ever to be adopted. James Dignan, a.k.a. Grutness...wha? 14:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was your flag proposal documented anywhere by a third party? Did it hit the headlines despite not being adopted? Has someone who is wholly independent of you written and published a list of flag proposals in which yours was included? It's not quite as simple as "proposed but not adopted", any more than it is not quite as simple as "never having won an election". Screaming Lord Sutch never won an election, but was widely discussed and documented, in non-trivial published works, by other people for not having done so. A failed flag proposal that was similarly widely discussed and documented belongs here for the same reason. Uncle G 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to have been mentioned in a couple of websites that I'm not connected with. Other than that though, I don't think so. As I said, it's hardly notable. One day, maybe... I'm toying with the idea of applying for the Antarctica arts scholarship (run here in NZ, it gives artists a month on The Ice during which time they work on art related to the continent). If that happens it will make more of a splash, but until then, it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. Same with the South Island one - it got one small newspaper article and has been flown in a couple of parades and things like that, but that's all. Grutness...wha? 02:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based upon what you say, I concur. Uncle G 03:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minx[edit]

Dictionary definition (text is copied from public-domain Webster 1913). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FFGurus[edit]

nn site, most google hits are self referential; Alexa shows rank of 1,000,000+. Delete. Also delete related image.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 13:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent PC[edit]

This is just a stub for the AFD Silent PC Review. Removing the two self promoting links from this "article" would remove all the content. HackJandy 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, the websites are probably non-notable, but the trend toward low-noise, low-wattage computing should have some coverage. Maybe redirect to Mini-ITX? Crotalus horridus 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Home theater PC. http://www.silent.se/ might not be selling anything, it might be non-commercial. Nonetheless, I don't know that the writeup has much beyond what's at HTPC#Noise. --Interiot 17:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral due to cleanup. I think the topic should be covered on its own somewhere on wikipedia, but it'd be nice to see the article expanded. --Interiot 22:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this could be an interesting article, even if I'm not sure about the name. I rewrote it a bit (when logged out by mistake). Bergsten 18:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: don't redirect to Home theater PC, because that's by no means the only reason people want very quiet computers; similarly, don't redirect to Mini-ITX, because there isn't any particular correlation between quiet PCs and small form factor PCs. I'm not sure whether there is a good place to merge this at all; if there really isn't, it should probably be kept and expanded to discuss the general trend towards low-noise computing. (Which is a religion for some people. Some of the noise-damping case mods out there are a sight to behold. But none of the ones I've seen have been mini-ITX, nor have I ever seen one used in a home theatre system, so...) — Haeleth Talk 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I use a modified Mini-ITX as a low noise client. But I fully agree that it's a bad place to redirect to. Bergsten 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Quiet PC or Low-noise computer or some such, keep, and expand. I added a few bits based on my experience (my web server lives under the stairs and is in an AcoustiCase C6607B - it is not quite silent (three IBM 15k SCSI drives see to that!) but pretty quiet, and the reduced noise levels over the old HP server certainly make a difference. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Istana Luwu[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable building. Can be merged to the city. Stifle 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the more-viable stub we now have. I don't suppose you worked from any sources you'd be willing to cite there, by any chance, Just zis Guy, you know?? — Haeleth Talk 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of it came from the linked articles on Wikipedia, the comment re Ductch influence was in the original and is not inconsistent with the one picture a Google Images search found. I didn't try that hard ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a stub, not a very good one, but nothing wrong with it either. Naturenet | Talk 10:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete (and do not transwikify). RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Swiss Banking Part 1 and Part 2[edit]

Reads like a magazine or book, transwiki to Wikibooks if eligible. Stifle 14:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research and clearly intended to be so. That was quick, you beat me to it by minutes :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or just Delete. I'm on the fence for this, since it almost reads like it was taken wholesale from a webpage or book making it a cpvio...but I don't have the time atm to search. --Syrthiss 14:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Part 1 of this article is currently on a site called Article Alley written by a chap called Fiorenzo Fontana. At the bottom of the article, it states: "This article is free for republishing." see (http://www.articlealley.com/article_18002_19.html). Capitalistroadster 16:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been unable to track down Part 2 yet but I suspect that is because it is too new for Google to index. Part 1 was only uploaded to Article Alley on Friday. Capitalistroadster 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If free for republishing means it's GFDL compatible, transwiki. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This isn't really suitable for Wikibooks. "Wikibooks is not a place for non-fiction books on any random subject you would like." Please stop sending us stuff that is not suitable. We are looking for academic resources. Jimbo has said that he wants WB to be for textbooks only, but that policy is currently under dispute at WB. To be safe, it may be wise to hold off on transwikiing non-textbook material for the time being. I'll keep you all updated. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research Avalon 09:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, orignial research. Don't move to wikibooks for reason given above. (sorry signed --Petros471 11:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC) )[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (consensus not reached). Enochlau 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com[edit]

Non-notable. No Alexa ranking. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 14:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nominator. Crotalus horridus 15:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The guidelines suggest that a site can have an article if it has gotten some international attention, which it has, so why not keep the article? User:VanillaX 10:12 5 December, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with VanillaX. The website is notable, keep it. User:Elminster41111 11:07 7 December, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable web page. --Hurricane111 17:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable online paintball store. Doesn't match what is described in the article. ESkog | Talk 20:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article establishes that the site was indeed notable, keep it. TWG373 | Talk 12:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see it meeting WP:CORP --Jaranda wat's sup 18:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually a company, they don't sell anything. They just show images of paintball related items in a shop-like format.VanillaX

  • Keep It's an improtant image site. Lots of paintballers use the images for their needs, definitely should be a keep 5:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 23:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Searchius[edit]

Non-notable freeware, <300 Google hits, <1000 downloads from download.com and at least one reviewer complains of massive maware issues (in a P2P program? Who'd have thought it!); no evidence of importance or notability, apparently spam for bog-standard non-notable freeware. Anon user's sole contribution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reposted this article. Your comments about the software is unwelcome since this is not a spyware but a freeware. The user who reported this is a spyware obviously did not even know what he was saying as you can find by checking his other comments as well. If you go to http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/screenshots.php you can find screenshots of the program and at http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/info.html you can fine more info about the program.

There are also more papers that describe it at: http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/papers/Bottom-Up-Approach.pdf

http://searchius.ceid.upatras.gr/papers/HybridP2PApproach-www2006.pdf


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pure sociology[edit]

Although Donald Black is noteable, every term he used in an original (or non-original) way is not an "invention" of his. Fancruft. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I created this article, but it is not fancruft. Pure Sociology is an entirely new way to conduct sociology, as detailed in the article. It was very much an invention of Black's, and did not exist previously. However, it is no longer an activity of one man, but has a growing school of practitioners which has developed over the past 30 years. More importantly, and more germane to Wikipedia and AfD policy, it is a subject worthy of its own article, distinct from a merge into Black's biography, and ready for further development as others contribute. I have already extensively revised and extended the article from the short piece nominated for deletion, and am certain that continued development of it will further justify its presence in Wikipedia. Per AfD policy, "If in doubt, don't delete." Airumel 21:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's just one problem, which is that you haven't cited any sources. Unverifiable articles get deleted regardless of any questions of truth, notability, quality, and so on! If you could add some references, to published books and articles and the like, that we can use to check this information, then I think it's quite likely that this article could be kept. — Haeleth Talk 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understood. Will do so this evening. Airumel 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have added references to the three primary sources on the idea. Have also added references on the Donald Black article to others that have used his ideas, including this one. Will next add further entries to the Donald Black article on detractors and unsuccessful tests of some of his ideas, will subgroup the references there (his work, others' use, and critics), and will reference the latter 2 groups of those here. Respectfully request that nom be withdrawn. Airumel 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason why this article should be deleted, particularly not now that Airumel has expanded it and added references. KillerChihuahua's nomination appears to suggest s/he believes Black did not invent this approach - but even if that were the case, it would be a reason to correct the article, not to delete it. (And I will note in passing that such limited research as I've been able to conduct for myself, with the help of Google Book Search, has left me with the impression that the article is accurate.) — Haeleth Talk 20:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pure sociology is a noteworthy approach in sociology, regardless if one agrees with it or not. It would perhaps be better to write that Donald Black 'developed' the approach, rather than invented, since it is built on the work of otrhers as well. But by its own aspirations, the approach is indeed very different (whether it actually is that different is up for debate). —the preceding unsigned comment is by Deflem (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal herpes[edit]

Not an actual medical condition. Was already listed for speedy delete and then a merge to herpes simplex virus, but these attempts were reverted. Delete it. —Brim 15:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge if there are recorded cases of this, otherwise delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if you suspect that you may have been exposed to the herpes simplex (typically via sexual intercourse involving the nose)" -- clearly fake. Delete. Catamorphism 06:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. I skimmed the first article in the references which is wholly unrelated. Hoax. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cullen[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Jones (pirate)[edit]

This article lacks sources, uses a lot of passive voice and has a lot of spelling mistakes. DeleteTheRingess 00:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Davy Jones' locker. The Davy Jones of Davy Jones locker is already covered in our article on Davy Jones' locker. According to this site, [17], one of the origins for Davy Jones is: "Yet a third theory says, as you suggest, that Davy Jones was a fearsome pirate, who loved to make his captives walk the plank, so they ended up at the bottom of the sea; but nobody, so far as I know, has identified this alarming outlaw." Our article on Davy Jones locker identifies Davey Jones as Davey Jones is the villain of the upcoming Disney film Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, where he will be the captain of a ship featured in other nautical lore, the Flying Dutchman.. This seems to be the basis for the article. Capitalistroadster 16:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, redirect per Cap. PJM 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, redirect or delete as per is factual errors— Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect I'm certain all the information on this page is based on the upcoming movie.--Cuchullain 08:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect. Anything but delete. It can be changed, but deleting it when only result in a loss of information. Эйрон Кинни 21:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fday[edit]

As this article stands now, the deletion is in order because it looks like a promotional page more than an encyclopaedic article. Lincher 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article describes a software package that is "as yet unavailable", and so certainly not one that has suffered from genericization of its name. The article cites no sources, as usual, and searching I can find no published works dealing with this package that aren't trivial (e.g. directory listings of things that are coming "real soon now" with no real information), or from unreliable sources (e.g. pseudonymous people describing it in discussion fora as "now mythical"), or sourced directly from its creator (e.g. screenshots that people only have the creator as a source for). It thus fails the WP:CORP criteria for products and services. Delete. Uncle G 17:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, short/no context. Gazpacho 20:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable) --Nlu 22:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Leung[edit]

This page does not satisfy the Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia doesn't need a page for every high school kid. Furthermore, this page seems to be made up by the club, which this kid belong to, as a way to advertise the club. - 169.231.1.49 03:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Go, go, let us go, Let us fight against discrimination!

Students, students try your best, Keep it up, Don't give up, True will come at last of course! HKSSU 09:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 219.78.21.252 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7 JoJan 10:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Anson Ballard[edit]

No content, but some significance

  • Delete, if no more content added. The Hooded Man 01:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep it, because it DOES have content and it DOES have significance. "hoodedman", I don't care whether you like this article or not, but it matters, and it deserves to be in Wikipedia. —preceding unsigned comment by 24.34.98.199 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please sign your posts (everyone), and understand that new users votes are often discounted. I love the fad, (especially the Jesus ones), and find them quite hilarious, and while this is also tragic, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 01:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this person is known only for the reasons stated in the article, it does not seem to be particularly encyclopedic. Also, the article seems to be borderline disrespectful to its subject, and it's probably better to remove it from Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 01:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- He should be remembered for his life, not his death.- Marira 07:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article bears some relevance to the history of Myspace. —preceding unsigned comment by 82.42.19.192 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Then merge it with the Myspace article, doesn't warrant it's own. dr.alf 03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly non-notable suicide. While acknowledging that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or the angsty, we don't want to encourage attention-seeking suicides by giving them articles on Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 16:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad but unverifiable. 200 Google hits for "Joshua Ballard" see [18] with no reliable sources verifying this information. Suicide happened recently but no mention on Google News see [19].Capitalistroadster 17:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No encyclopedic value. Zazou 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But preferably merge with something else. Toastypk 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least merge into Myspace dr.alf 03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because this is a defining moment of internet culture. At least merge it with either the Myspace entry or something related to internet memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.74.52 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep See previous poster. 132.66.100.130
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Wikipedia is not a memorial either. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sockpuppet limit breached. —Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Capitalistroadster, regardless of sockpuppet infiltration. Hall Monitor 18:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's not noteworthy beyond YTMND. The YTMND fad article is really all the most this needs. User: 24.9.10.235
  • Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigkahuna (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC}; it was his first edit
  • Keep. His suicide and the aftermath is known to millions thanks to his exposure through MySpace. - Stoph 06:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 11 Google news articles found here (some duplicate although different newspapers): [20] - Stoph 06:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see what differentiates him from thousands of other suicides, really. He posted on Myspace, but so? Lots of people commit suicide; most of them write suicide notes; less people publish them on the Internet (though I 'know' someone on a forum who did, and don't think he needs an article here), but the fact that he did so doesn't seem to have generated enough interest to make him notable. --Last Malthusian 09:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. YTMND interest, on its own (or nearly on its own) doesn't seem enough to justify a biography. They find anything funny. --LM[reply]
  • Keep and Merge with mySpace. --Yoshi —preceding unsigned comment by 71.198.149.190 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge with mySpace unless more content gets added. Digamma 04:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but don't merge with MySpace. This warrants it's own article, but would not fit into the flow of the MySpace one. Just put a mention and link in the MySpace article, and clean this one up a lot. Also, the hacking is notable too, not just the YTMND stuff. --192.122.237.6 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism[edit]

The article is a neologism and failed the google test. KarmaKameleon 11:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This AfD nomination is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s second edit.[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename if a better term can be found. It's a legitimate article in need of better citations that does have a decent set of external links. Originally I thought maybe redirect to Unitarianism, but this covers too many other deviations from Christian trinitarian doctrine. Durova 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rename, but Keep -- "non-trinitarian" turns up 14,100 Google hits, and Nontrinitarianism contains a lot of content which is too big to merge into the main article Trinity (which is by itself already getting rather large). AnonMoos 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. The search "anti-trinitarian OR antitrinitarian OR non-trinitarian OR nontrinitarian" turns up 48,600 Google hits. AnonMoos 16:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counting Google hits is not research. It is important to actually read the things that a Google search turns up. What's important here, for example, is whether your Google search turned up some sources. Uncle G 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nice -- I wasn't researching anuything, just pointing out that anti-trinitarianism is a hardly a "neologistic" concept. AnonMoos 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Counting Google hits doesn't do that, as I said. I get Google hits for "strawberry graffiti", a concept that I made up just now, and for "zofip", a sequence of characters that I just chose at random. Uncle G 20:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever dude -- I'm sure you feel a warm pleasant glow of pride over your 8 hits for "strawberry graffiti", but I fail to see what relevance they have to the current discussion, since we're not Googlewhacking. AnonMoos 21:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The relevance is pretty clear. Please read what I wrote again. Uncle G 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please go play your little Googlewhacking games elsewhere, and leave the rest of us to discuss the merits of the proposal, because I find your off-base and quantitatively-ignorant accusations of shoddy "research" to be annoying and quite irrelevant to the main topic here. AnonMoos 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • They are the main topic here. Doing research, and doing it properly, is a fundamental thing here in AFD. Uncle G 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Dude, you seem to be having extreme difficulty in your obtuseness in understanding the very simple fact that I was not "doing research" in the sense in which you intend. As a regular contributor to the Trinity article, I know about as much as I need to know about non-Trinitarianism, and I already knew beforehand pretty much what I would find when I made the Google search -- and if the Google search results had been drastically different from what I expected, then I would have first suspected a flaw in Google! The sole and exclusive reason I went to Google at all, was only to address KarmaKameleon Google-driven claims that non-Trinitarianism was a neologistic concept. Furthermore, there is a slight difference between 8 and 48,600. You certainly seem to find it very important to feel smugly condescendingly officiously superior to other people, even when there is extremely little basis in fact for such feelings. AnonMoos 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This should be a sub-section of trinity. The different churches describe here should then be listed under this subsection and would have their own respective articles. KarmaKameleon 16:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This comment is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s seventh edit.[reply]
  • Keep A little merging if you like, but a valid article. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are some references for the term, by the way: [21], plus many other other Wikipedia articles. A genuine neologism wouldn't have got this far without being deleted. DJ Clayworth 19:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the concepts on the article page are definitely not original research, and I think I've heard the term before. 132.205.45.148 19:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Rename or Delete, if only because of Wikipedia guidelines Avoid_neologisms defining such as "words and terms that have recently been "coined" and generally do not appear in any dictionary."KarmaKameleon 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This vote is KarmaKameleon (talk · contribs)'s ninth/tenth edits.[reply]
  • Keep per DJ Clayworth. KK, you really might be better advised to spend more time participating in other Wikipedia activities to get a feel for Wikipedia before initiating AfDs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Speedy keep per DJ Clayworth and because of increasing evidence that this is a bad-faith nomination. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't blame me, it is a guideline, and you can't argue with that. This would be my 10th edit. KarmaKameleon 20:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were that easy there would be no AfD discussions. This is, however, the real world, and yes, we can "argue with that", and we may be arguing based on experience that you haven't had. For instance, you seem to think that "it is a guideline" means "it is an unalterable rule to which no exceptions can be considered", but more experienced Wikipedians understand that not even policy is the sort of "don't discuss, just obey" rule you seem to think it is -- and guidelines less so than policy. For another, we realize that it is very possible to misapply guidelines and policies (because hey, sometimes people have ulterior motives, and they try to pose as "only following the rules" when what they're really doing is trying to stretch the rules.) Speaking of misapplying guidelines, you quoted the part of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms that defined neologisms; did you also read the part about "Sometimes, experienced grammarians who know the meanings of prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and other -fix words might make articles about those words"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And would'nt that be nice? I disagree that in the "real world", we choose not the follow the guideline. Might as well not have them, if no ones going to follow them. There's no "misapplication" of guideline here, it's a total ignoring of it. The guideline is as plain as it can get and there's a reason why what I quoted was the first one. It needs to be applied first before the other. KarmaKameleon 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So basically, based on your vast experience with Wikipedia which just reached ten edits, you're absolutely sure that following a guideline means applying the first sentence rigidly and ignoring everything after that first sentence. (Interesting that that first sentence, which came first because it was clearly the most important one, wasn't even in the article a month and a half ago.[22]) As for "Might as well not have them if no one's going to follow them", I suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; maybe then you'll start to understand that Wikipedians are not only allowed to but expected to ask the question of which situations call for application of a guideline or policy, and which situations call for the guideline or policy itself to be modified. In particular, I think this AfD has illustrated a need to clarify that adding a well-known prefix such as "non-" to a well-known root word is not enough to create a "neologism" of the sort Wikipedia is trying to avoid. I am not ordinarily a fan of WP:IAR but if you actually think you're acting in the spirit of Wikipedia by trying to delete the information in the article just because some page you found in the Wikipedia namespace said "avoid neologisms" (not "seek and destroy neologisms", I must observe) then you really need far more experience with Wikipedia before you get anywhere near AfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes. "Ignore all rules" applies to the rule your trying to set. Maybe you should read what you write, and realize all of it applies to you too. ultimately these rules/guidelines meant to consider all sides. Also, where do you get the idea that I am "trying to delete the information in the article"? If you're confused by the title of the project, that wasn't my own. Look at my vote I'm leaving a lot of option for those who are 'truly' experienced with wikipedia, and not just the posers. Take a break, get some coffee to clear you mind a bit. KarmaKameleon 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Where do you get the idea that I am 'trying to delete the information in the article'?" From this edit and this edit, maybe? You're the one who nominated it for deletion and then you reiterated that "Delete" would be an acceptable outcome to you. I'm done with this; you've proven your bad faith. One moment you claim that the rules are the rules and "you can't argue with them" and then when that ceases to be convenient, you suddenly claim that you're just trying to make sure all sides are heard. One or the other might have been believable, but you're trying to switch sides as it suits your needs of the moment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's called going throught the process, sonny. And you said you're more experienced? I still don't understand why you're upset and losing your civility. A break will do you good. Run along... KarmaKameleon 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) It's probably a safe bet you have more post than anyone who so far voted here, even some sysops. But unlike you they just keep cool, vote and let the process take care of itself. KarmaKameleon 21:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment. If I may jump in... Antaeus, I think your original comment in this sub-discussion here might be considered to be violation of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:NPA. I see no evidence whatsoever that the nomination was in any way malformed or in bad faith. My personal opinion is that its a good nomination, and in fact I boted to merge the article. It's true that the information in the article should not just be thrown away, but a merge consensus is often a good and appropriate result of an article brought to attention via AfD. I also don't see why a new editor cannot lurk for a while and begin her editing career in AfD, if that is the path she chooses, and as long as her nominations are made in good faith and are properly formed, as here.Herostratus 12:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think that is an unwarranted accusation on your part, Herostratus. My "original comment in this sub-discussion" was that KarmaKameleon "might be better advised to spend more time participating in other Wikipedia activities to get a feel for Wikipedia before initiating AfDs." If KarmaKameleon were to double his/her edit count in the next five minutes it still wouldn't bring him/her up to what Wikipedia considers the standard "voting age". In what way is it biting a newbie to say "Hey, maybe you shouldn't jump right into the deep end of the pool"? As for not assuming good faith, I did assume good faith -- when that was still a reasonable assumption. By the time KK was saying "It's a guideline and you can't argue with that," there were two possibilities left: that KK was acting in bad faith, trying to get the information in the article deleted or marginalized in order to push POV, or that KK, being so new to Wikipedia, did not yet grasp that neither guidelines nor policies have that inalterable "you can't argue with that" quality he/she claimed for Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. But when KK suddenly switched tracks, from 'there's no other correct interpretation of the guideline and the guideline is inalterable' to 'Ignore All Rules? Sure, poser, we'll start by pretending you're trying to make new rules and use that as an excuse to ignore you' it became clear that KK was not trying to argue the deletion of the article as a means to the end of obeying the rules (which would be misguided, but a mistake a newbie could make in good faith) but instead was pressing for the deletion of the article as his/her end, and was willing to switch as needed between the standards of 'we need robotic compliance to The Rules' or 'hey, I'm just trying to examine all options when I propose deletion' in pursuit of that goal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm sure that KK is sincere at some level, but unfortunately KK started participating in Wikipedia by immediately trying to jump to an advanced level of procedures, and by presenting a proposal which it is only too easy to interpret as motivated more by technical lawyering than a desire to improve Wikipedia. The fact that KK's non-AfD contributions are mainly misspelled semi-grammatical edits to the first-paragraphs of large "mature" articles like Christianity and Trinity (which have been quickly reverted) doesn't do anything to dispel this unfortunate impression. AnonMoos 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yes, I understand your point there, but KK doesn't have a real track record. I mean new editors need guidance. I mean, lots of editors, their first work is "DOES THIS WORK???" or whatever. There's no danger of the contents of the article being removed (a merge or move is possible), so don't let being upset of it being AfD'd be cause to forget WP:BITE. Also, I am trying to set the indent record here. Herostratus
  • Keep or Merge as needed - I concur with User:Durova. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even recognized denominations, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, are nontrinitarian.--HistoricalPisces 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is there's no dictionary entry or book that describes and uses the term. It only appears in wikipedia and it's clones. KarmaKameleon 21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Unitarianism. I always thought that Unitarianism = Nontrinitarianism. Is there a difference? Even if so, it should be discussed in the merged article. (True, there is also a church called "Unitarian", but it's properly styled Unitarian Universalist and has its own article). I hate to recommend Merges because that means extra work for somebody, but I think in this case its necessary. (Nontrinitariansm could remain as a redirect to Unitarianism.) Herostratus 12:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In actual usage, Unitarianism as a stand-alone term most often refers to one historical trend of Christian Protestantism in Europe and America from the 17th through the 19th century (as seen in the article). Furthermore, not all non-Trinitarians are Unitarians! AnonMoos 18:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nontrinitarianism is quite distinct from Unitarianism, and much older, going back to the heresy of Arius. Chick Bowen 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The word used in the Catholic Encyclopedia is Antitrinitarianism but this of course is the Catholic pov, cite: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm 64.169.5.159 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't say that Antitrinitarianism is "POV" exactly, but you do bring up an interesting point, in that many of those who hold non-Trinitarian views consider that they have positively valid religious doctrines, and don't want to be negatively defined as merely being "anti-"something. AnonMoos 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pulikkanny[edit]

Clear case of vanity. This village is unknown and does not need a wikipedia entry.PeaSea 06:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This place is not important and I would have normally voted for a delete. But looking at Category:Cities_and_towns_in_Kerala, the benchmark for notability seems to be very low. Towns and villages which are hardly anything - like Singarathoppe, Padne, Puthuvely - have articles about them, so I don't see why this place shouldn't have one about it. Tintin 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ. I have studied in a place near to the above mentioned place and haven't heard of anything of this sort mentioned in the page. The article looks like a prank played by some one who stubled upon the wikipedia while browsing. PeaSea 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too come from a place near there and haven't heard of Pulikkanny. But the place name is not fake [23]. Chimminy Dam and Kurumali river does exist. A google for Kerala Forest Research Institute Botanical Gardens says that it is in Peechi, which is in the same general area.
But my vote is mainly based on the presence of the other not-so-important places from Kerala (where the hell is Achickal, Pavayil and Patturaikkal ? There must be dozens of places by the name Alinchuvadu) Tintin 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the long-standing precedent to keep all verifiable settlements. We must have thousands of bot-created articles on U.S. "cities" of under 100 inhabitants, every single one containing nothing but the same identical statistics spouted straight from a census; that's a heck of a systemic bias to counter. — Haeleth Talk 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if this place is real, in accordance with precedence from the U.S.A. and to counter systemic bias. India has three times as many inhabitants as the U.S. and, assuming any kind of similar settlement pattern (which is not a given, but too much for me to research now), we should ultimately end up with about three times as many articles on places in India as we have for the U.S. But with the relatively few Indians on Wikipedia, there is a risk that hoaxes could slip thorough the cracks. We really need some authoritative gazetteer(s) for india which could be consulted for verifying information, and which should always be referenced in the articles. u p p l a n d 08:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Following a discussion with User:Peasea, I would like to change this article to a one line stub which just says it is a small village near Thrissur. This place is very insignificant - Peasea lived quite close by and knows about it; I come from a place which is about 40 miles from there and have never heard of it. While the places referred to in the article like Chimminy dam and Kurumali river are real, the descriptions looks so suspicious that it is probably fake. Note that the article does not say anything it being near the dam, but a 'stop enroute'.


It is not 'renowned', it is not a 'famous tourist attraction', the so called football league is probably played in paddy fields or in a school ground (as often done in villages in Kerala ). Tintin 17:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and thier life cycles[edit]

Star is sufficient imo... plus i'm a bit concerned about this article's title... copyvio? Jackk 01:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of this info is already in Stellar evolution. And "thier?" RabidMonkeysEatGrass 02:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another well-meaning user learns a lesson. Daniel Case 02:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete homework assignment; content better covered elsewhere. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "Thier" is giving me the shakes. 23skidoo 18:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't something on astronomy recently get transferred to Wikibooks? This article has more detail and could be transferred as a separate book and/or merged. Fg2 07:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinetic Effect[edit]

I don't think this is notable. Further, if the band formed in Nov 2005, it's dubious that they have two EPs out. Regardless of whether or not they have published, I don't think this band is sufficiently notable to have an article.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Udyogamandal School[edit]

Wiki page looks like a brochure. I recommend deletion. PeaSea 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Tintin 21:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. There is nothing brochure-like at all about this article, it is neutral and factual. Silensor 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the proposal at WP:SCH: this article passes on all counts (verifiable content, third-party references, and a picture). It even counters systemic bias! I never thought I'd be voting "strong keep" on a school stub, but that day has finally come. — Haeleth Talk 22:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and please we should stop our bias here Yuckfoo 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools in India are just as important as schools elsewhere.--Centauri 21:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn school Tintin 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 22:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Engler[edit]

This is a vanity page Knave75 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

”keep” Yves is a well known Montreal activist and published author. His books appears in numerous well known bookstores across Canada and a quick google search reveals his prolific journalism on numerous political subjects. Lastly, I think the work that he's doing is important and find it suspicious that at this particular time, during the federal election campaign period, as Yves faces charges for confronting and heckling Paul Martin abbout Canadian foreign policy in Haiti, his Wikipedia article is being dubbed a vanity site.

  • Knave75, the definition of a vanity article is "the article was written by the subject himself". There's no evidence that this is the case here, as far as I can tell, and a lot of evidence that it isn't — just look at the creator's contribution history: Anne Baxter? Edgar Allan Poe? Raven-Symoné? Ozzy Osbourne? Butter tart? Do edits like that seriously imply "this user is Yves Engler" to you? Because I gotta say...they sure as hell don't say that to me. At 82,000 Google hits, in fact, and being someone who's currently the centre of a major news story, he's so much an obvious keep that I expect you to provide some proof of your assertion that this is a vanity page; I'm fully prepared to pull admin rank and deem this a closed debate if you don't prove the claim. Bearcat 04:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Obvioulsy, published author and activist in the news. Luigizanasi 05:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thin-up[edit]

Either a hoax or an obscure term that doesn't seem verifiable via Google. Original creator already carried out this dubious edit (note addition of "oddball"; hoax-like name and the figures are out of place in the list). Perhaps they went in the huff after I reverted their change of "candy" to "sweet", and decided to screw things up instead? Fourohfour 15:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A thin-up was actually a kind of sweet i had when i was younger, because my mam bought me them and they where impossible to chew so she gave them away. (Preceding unsigned comment from User:Sangajin, 09:37, 8 December 2005)
    • Even if you *did* say "thin ups", doesn't mean the expression was in common use. Providing a number of links of its usage would back up your case more strongly. Or perhaps it's another name for a kind of sweet that already has its own article? Fourohfour 12:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per criteria A7. --Allen3 talk 16:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff martindale[edit]

Appears to be a nonsense vanity 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

African National Congress Youth League[edit]

The article appears to be the charter for a group by the same name. Transwiki to wikisource or delete as per WP:NOT. --Allen3 talk 16:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — racist propaganada. — RJH 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with the rewrite. Good job Capitalistroadster! — RJH 18:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NOT unless anybody really thinks this would raise the tone at Wikisource. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This document is authentic and notable. I found a copy on the African National Congress Youth League website citing Nelson Mandela as one of the authors see [24]. I also think that the youth wing of the governing party of South Africa with Mandela as one of its founders is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 17:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article about the ANC Youth League. It is a notable organisation founded by Mandela and a number of other notable South Aficans. Thabo Mbeki started his political career in the ANC Youth League. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. --Allen3 talk 18:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Capital rewrite from Capitalistroadster! Keresaspa 18:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite. Great job!!  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is fine now. Rhion 19:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phisshwhagh[edit]

Originally marked for moving to dictionary. Google search is unable to find the word, so I guess it is an invented word, or at best a random creative (mis)spelling of the interjection. This is not what Wiktionary is for, so delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellakar[edit]

This page was previously submitted along with a batch of Middle-earth related articles. At the time the group submission was generally considered to be a WP:POINT situation and all of the submissions were kept. However, 'Bellakar' is not part of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. The name appears nowhere in his stories or notes. This is actually a fan project to 'flesh out' Middle-earth with 'additional kingdoms' which is being maintained on a restricted yahoo group. --CBD ✉ 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "fan unfinished work" 'nuff said. KillerChihuahua 18:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for Tolkien articles (seeing them on Google searches is what brought me here in the first place), but not 'outside' information which hasn't achieved significant notability on its own. --CBD ✉ 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the first time I'm happy to call something fancruft. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My objections to this article have been on its talk page for quite some time. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a catalogue of little-known (private?) fan-fiction.--Steuard 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapparat rap quartet[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, yet sadly no WP:CSD applies. They are 'up and coming' and 'releasing a cd on their own label' and other red flag phrases. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The anon has removed the AfD notice a couple of times; I've left polite word. - Lucky 6.9 17:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Abendroth[edit]

This article lacks substance and relevance. Snorgenhorpher 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 junk article backing up an nn-bio qualifies as vandalism in my book. -Splashtalk 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewdauism[edit]

Quote from article: "Jewdauism is a relatively unknown and obscure branch of the world religion Judaism with only one known practitioner". Punkmorten 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete possible hoax article. One adherent, author admitted ignorance, no sources, nope. KillerChihuahua 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. We don't need these kind of articles here. Aucaman 19:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article cites no sources, and I cannot find any sources, so it is first of all completely unverifiable. The article also states outright that this is a(nother) religion of 1 adherent. Without evidence that this religion has been acknowledged by other people, and become a part of the corpus of human knowledge, this article is also original research. Delete. Uncle G 20:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Arsenal[edit]

Quote from article: Championships and accomplishments - None as of this writing. Also vanity. Punkmorten 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think because there are no Championships won on his part is no reason to delete. It's a profile of quite possibly a future star in pro wrestling.

  • Quite possibly... We aren't in the business of predicting success (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Delete, with possibility of recreation when (and if) he ever makes it in the big-time. Saberwyn 10:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Pokemon community[edit]

This forum has 2,818 active members, less than the proposed limit of 5,000. Forumcruft. Punkmorten 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia spear[edit]

Lacks substance. I am also unable to find any relevant references on Google. Snorgenhorpher 17:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Club Sandwich[edit]

Don't think this is notable. There are a few relevant Google results (mostly stuff in the vein of MySpace), but a lack of an All Music Guide entry makes me suspicious. Do they even have an album or anything? 151.205.103.25 17:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notable bands have articles that are more than one sentence long. B.Wind 03:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems they have an album called 'Chin Music', and there are a fair amount of Google hits; here are the details and an image search. They don't seem massive, but I still think they warrant inclusion. Fourohfour 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --Jaranda wat's sup 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Central High School JROTC[edit]

Do we really need a page on a high school's JROTC program? Delete. --Nlu 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete JROTC has an article. If this program is outstanding in some way, add content to the high school, don't create a new article. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vote to merge with Cheyenne Central High School but it seems we don't currently have an article on that so delete. Capitalistroadster 18:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this program has been running for over 100 years, it will be a nice little bit of notability for the school's article when that's eventually created. It doesn't deserve an article of its own, though, and this smells rather of copyvio from a brochure of some sort, so... delete? — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:NOT.Gateman1997 19:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

System3cs[edit]

Advertising spam of non-existant (in beta) software. Orphan article. Non-noteable. KillerChihuahua 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There is presently no website promoting System3CS ... as the developers do not feel that it is at the stage where they are ready to start disclosing the actual specifics of the project." In other words, delete per WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 22:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMICO explorers[edit]

A non-notable urban exploration group. Crotalus horridus 18:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just because its non-notable to one person doesn't mean other people wouldn't be interested in this particular entry. (The preceding is an unsigned entry by User:65.99.141.11. It is his only edit. Crotalus horridus 14:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • These guys are no Cave Clan. I will admit that they've only existed for two or three months, but in that time, they appear to have made no major achievements or received media attention. Delete, with the potential for re-creation if this group becomes relatively significant in the world of urban exploration. Saberwyn - 10:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Fong[edit]

Non-notable bio. 136.165.114.218 18:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE, Wikipedia is not a milk carton. 132.205.45.148 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but if WP is not a milk carton, what have I been putting on my cereal? Peyna 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I take my WP in the morning with coffee. What have you been putting on your cereal? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you've been putting SPAM on your cereal? - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why don't we just start letting spambots write articles? Bill shannon 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this disappearance receive any serious press attention or did it spark any new laws? - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it did, it could just go under Missing pretty girl syndrome or something. Since only those kind of disappearances attract any press attention or new laws. 14:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Murad's Skin Care[edit]

Advertising. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the father of Internal Skincare advertising. Dlyons493 Talk 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wingit film[edit]

With a fanbase in the 'dozens' as stated by the article, it appears to be nn. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Seinfeld_terms[edit]

Delete. This page has, at most, one or two entries that are really part of "pop culture". The vast vast majority of it reads like lines that have been added by fans of the show that understand the subtle inside jokes. "My friend quotes this line all the time, so it must be pop culture" does not a valid entry make. PxT 19:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agreed. violet/riga (t) 20:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the main Seinfeld article is cruftbloaty enough without a whole pointless list devoted to it. ESkog | Talk 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jkelly 00:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this show has made enough cultural impact -- and not in just the esoteric world of Seinfeld fans -- to warrant a second look. Though the list could be cleaned up a bit.
  • Keep it* , this show has changed the face of comedy and sitcoms. The words they came up with were an important factor. Where else would someone find an article like this. Lastly, does it really affect anyone with it being there. Does it change someones view of life because it is there? No. If you dont like it, dont look at it.
  • Delete. This is fancruft. Really, how many times have ANY of you heard any of these phrases used in everyday conversation? I've certainly not heard a single one. But forgetting that, this is just a list of phrases some fans evidently decided they liked and which were put together in one place. What's next, lists of inside jokes you share with your friends? Nezu Chiza 04:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like the page a lot, but as a Wikipedia article, it doesn't quite make it.--Bltpdx 22:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really interesting, unencyclopedic, and I like following the crowd. Croat Canuck 02:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian alternative bands[edit]

The only thing coherent about this article is its title. The page is a list of random links that are neither "Christian" nor "alternative", and often not even musical groups at all. I thought about listing for {attention} but cleaning up this list would be much harder than recreating it (assuming anyone actually wants to). I've had it marked as {disputed} for 6 weeks now and apparently no one cares enough to fix it. BrainyBroad 19:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the list is certainly a good idea, but you're right, it's an editting nightmare. Unless anyone says otherwise, I am going to start blanking the non-noteable entries from the list. HackJandy 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I cleaned up a lot of the article, but I lost interest and don't care if it gets deleted anymore. HackJandy 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HackJandy. This is a legitimate genre, yet one that's not so broad as to likely have thousands of entries. I agree, though, it needs to be vetted for non-notable listings. 23skidoo 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not in any sense a list of "Christian alternative bands." More than half (probably closer to 90%) of the musicians in the list are not alternative. If a list of Christian alternative bands article is needed then fine, but this list is certainly not it. Tsm1128 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a 30 second browse and found many entries that weren't even musicians! I'm thinking Delete, with the potential for later and saner recreation.
  • Delete. I'm not an expert on Christian music, but I have a reasonably good idea of what Christian alternative music would be like, and I know that Amy Grant and Charlie Daniels are not examples of it. If anyone wants to rescue this article, I would recommend deleting all the redlink entries and limiting the list to actual Christian alternative bands. --Metropolitan90 02:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Despite the cleanup, there are still redlink entries and entries for bands which have not been established as being involved in Christian music. --Metropolitan90 16:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly create a category.Gateman1997 19:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep VfD is not cleanup.  Grue  16:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, it can be saved because it is good topic, but as it is now it is not very unencyclopediac. Croat Canuck 03:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Yungman[edit]

No google hits, no sources cited, unverifiable. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Kappa. holy crap, did I just say that? did KAPPA just want to delete something? the sky is falling!! ;)  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 19:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Kappa thinks it needs deleted, it's hard to argue otherwise. Peyna 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Jkelly 00:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly, per all of the above. And implement the Wikipedia:Kappa Deletion System to he can speedily delete at will, without Afd. When Kappa says "delete", you know the article is unsalvagable. Friday (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under A7, no claim to notablily, vanity. --Aranda 56 00:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his first show was infront of about 10 THOUSEND people!!!"" Kappa 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7, or just ordinary delete if a show "infront of about 10 THOUSEND people" is a valid claim of notability. Stifle 13:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 discounting anon voters. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New York/New Jersey Revolution[edit]

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 19:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Delete them if they don't play a game. Keep the team that exists until proven otherwise.
  • Keep. We have articles on other minor-league or small-market sports teams, such as the Schaumburg Flyers, Everett Hawks, etc. ESkog | Talk 20:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the fact that all the other teams in the league are listed as well bodes well, but maybe all the teams could be sublistings on the main page and some redirects could be set up. unsigned comment from Bill shannon at 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. This league doesn't even exist yet and has yet to play a game.Gateman1997 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gateman1997. Stifle 13:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not proven.  Grue  16:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a pretty stable league and ownership. Plus there is no reason to delete it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legal reality: analytic approach[edit]

Delete this essay. Article doesn't appear to have encyclopedic worth and cannot be refactored into a notable topic. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was KEEP. Jayden54 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring Me The Horizon[edit]

Bring Me The Horizon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second nomination (first AFD decision: Delete), blanked by anon and possibly still non-notable. RoyBoy 800 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sole claim to fame is releasing an LP and EP on a minor label and thus fails WP:MUSIC. JChap2007 01:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep. Authough I don't personally like the band: they are very important on their scene and their album is currently number 9 in the UK Rock charts. Robincard Robincard 07:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Music says "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media" - They have appeared multiple occasions in Kerrang, and have even received a special pullout mini-magazine in Rock Sound issue 91, as well as one of their tracks being on the free CD of that magazine. They have also won a "Best Newcomer" Kerrang Award. --Cardboardboxman 14:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is a boss band and has a great live show. been featured in many many magazines up and down the country, released a sold out EP, a massive selling album, has a huge fanbase and has done many achievements most bands have not in past two years. --ChrisDT 14:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC) — ChrisDT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. The award win seems to make them sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band have had a massive two page poster in Kerrang the biggest selling weekly magazine in the world, as well as winning the award, as well as being on a record label that is owned by Sony records. Xsharksx 18:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as usual. Here's the log for this article:
  • 21:16, October 16, 2006 Fang Aili (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (A7)
  • 21:05, October 16, 2006 Mr. Lefty (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (CSD G4)
  • 20:52, October 16, 2006 Merope (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (csd a7; content was: 'Bring Me The Horizon (BMTH) is a death metal band from Sheffield in South Yorkshire. They pwn.Why has no one made this article yet?' (and the only contributor was 'PWN3D'))
  • 04:22, September 24, 2006 Centrx (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (Old deleted-protected page)
  • 14:22, May 8, 2006 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (redirect to deleted article, also title is repost.)
  • 01:46, December 11, 2005 Enochlau (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bring Me The Horizon" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bring Me The Horizon)
So, serially re-created band vanity. Pretty close to 100% of the edits to this and the linked This Is What The Edge Of Your Seat Was Made For and Count Your Blessings (also previously deleted) are by anons and users with little or no history outside of this one subject. It's really hard not to see this as vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the band have only just reached the point where they are relevant enough to be included in Wikipedia hence the articles being deleted in the past...you can just expect a band to start and suddenly be notable, can you? Robincard 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See User:JzG/And the band played on... Guy (Help!) 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any evidence that the band added themselves Weed patrol 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The band were on the cover of Kerrang and are signed to a large indie and have made a significant impact on the UK scene.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was overwhelming keep.

John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy[edit]

Anon puts false info in article. Seigenthaler complains, false info removed. A lot of people write a lot of articles about this which all say pretty much the same things. Is this really the stuff of an encyclopedia article? Let's avoid intense self-referential navel gazing, please. This deserves nothing more than a paragraph in the Seigenthaler article. Gamaliel 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept. It is an event in history that occured and as such has every right to be documented, controversial or not.

  • Keep. Perhaps this will be no more than a tempest in a teapot; right now, it's a big tempest--which makes it notable. It certainly is verifiable. And it's one more item in the ongoing debate concerning anonymous Internet publishing (Wikipedia, blogs, etc). Had Seigenthaler not gone public (making the incident notable), then yes--I would argue against such an article. But the fact that it has erupted into a somewhat major public controversy makes the topic noteworthy. My main concern about the article is that it's too self-referential or too "meta"--but Wikipedia can write about Wikipedia, and this is one of those instances. --EngineerScotty 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, rename to remove the incorrect middle initial "R" (Seigenthaler's middle name is "Lawrence". In creating this page, I followed a link from the discussion page of John Seigenthaler Sr. which had the "R", blindly assuming that the initial was correct. It appears that it was not; my apologies. --EngineerScotty 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Already mentioned in both Wikipedia and John Seigenthaler Sr.. NatusRoma 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the reference in Wikipedia (which I added) points to this article. --EngineerScotty 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That can be changed, though. There's really not much additional information worth merging into either article. NatusRoma 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in a major media outlet--the USA's largest-circulation daily. Picked up many places elsewhere. Important to history and nature of Wikipedia. Besides, info may not even belong in Seigenthaler's main article. Massysett 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or maybe merge to Mr. Seigenthaler's main article - this event has been mentioned in an interview on a major media outlet. Although I can see how you think this is Wikicruft.
  • Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr.. Although right now that page is, bizarrely, blank. Bikeable 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was due to a technical issue; the article's content has been restored (the article is still protected). --EngineerScotty 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - if this has lasting consequences for Wikipedia, people will want to know about it. Also, since the op-ed was published in USA Today, it's clearly notable. --Fermatprime 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant event on recent issues with the Wiki model of content editing, and as such it would be as shame to lose it. Wikipedia shouldn't be afraid of self-criticism --RayaruB 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, do not embarass the project A picayune matter with its own article--looks bad already. But given the opportunity this article will grow to include village pump posts and more lovely self-references. Not how we want to be see as. Lotsofissues 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - embarrassment of the project is not enough reason to delete. a valuable topic. Jsnell 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Important to document this sort of thing on Wikipedia. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to wikipedia: namespace. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Delete post haste! Neutralitytalk 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this incident appears likely to have lasting implications for Wikipedia (including, hopefully, the elimination of anon vandals). If we delete it, we're playing into the hands of the critics who accuse Wikipedia of censorship. 23skidoo 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though it's worth noting that in this case, the critics are complaining that we don't do enough censorship. (After all, editing is a form of censorship, when you get right to it!) For Wikipedia to be successful at its mission, it must find the correct balance between encouraging authors and editors, while keeping out the garbage). --EngineerScotty 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Last night in the discussion page for the original article on John Seigenthaler Sr. I advised the following -- Marcopolo 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (...) <moved to [[25]|talk page] -Splashtalk 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)>[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki to WikiNews. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with something like Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. It is good to be open about the problems we encounter. It builds trust, and makes it more likely that the project learns and grows beyond them. -- Jake 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this controversy is still covered in the major news media for at least the next three days. Ingoolemo talk 02:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How would we ever have a fighting chance at gaining back the trust of the public if we weren't accountable? Someone didn't catch a profound mistake quickly enough, and we have only ourselves to blame for this unfortunate incident, so we should just let people criticize us, and let us cooperate with those people in a civilized manner to get the criticism resolved.  Denelson83  04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whatever's worth saying can be put in Seigenthaler's main article. Just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't make it any more notable in the broader scope—it's still on the low end of the notability spectrum, worthy of a mention but not an independent article. Everyking 08:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already covered at Wikipedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. and the Signpost. If it's not there already, transwiki to Wikinews, otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very notable event now. Assuming it keeps this level of notability, yup. FCYTravis 12:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Landmark event in Wikipedia history. --Peripatetic 14:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WAS 4.250 15:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't want to get accused of covering up our dirty laundry --rogerd 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia: space, and perhaps merge some of it into the Seignethaler article. This is largely an internal issue, not of encyclopedic interest in itself. NTK 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently notable. Furthermore, being open about such issues may sometimes be unpleasant, but I think will ultimately lead to improvement of Wikipedia. Crust 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. or otherwise delete. I don't see any reason why this can't be covered in existing articles.--cj | talk 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an important moment in WikiPedia history, and is easily as significant as many other pages. Understanding why WikiPedia made a significant change in its policies requires understanding the incident, and it is going to be used by people writing about Wikipedia more than by people writing about Seigenthaler. Merging with his main bio page would overweight this incident in his career.JimHu 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep - The extra 'e' is for Extra Keep. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 17:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's notible. D. Wo. 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. A bunch of major news outlets have covered the story, in addition to an article in USA Today. Definately notable, but you don't want a random page (read: vandal target) out there that doesn't get looked at very often. The main article on Seigenthaler will certainly have enough eyes on it now to keep it clean. --Michael (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Everyking. CDC (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (do not merge). Move back to main namespace, where it belongs. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Keimzelle 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a media story and must be an article. --DuKot 21:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per everyone's reasoning above, and no merge, since John Seigenthaler Sr. should be about John Seigenthaler, not about a single incident with Wikipedia. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This time yesterday, I'd have said delete. But Jimbo's decision to prohibit newpage creation by anons has cranked up the media attention sharply. It spent a portion of this afternoon (UTC) in the headlines of the BBC News website. -Splashtalk 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy moved to Wikipedia: namespace[edit]

  • Is it appropriate to move an article while an AFD is pending? (Especially since one of the possible results of an AFD is moving the article!) Such a move has been proposed in the above discussion; it seems to me that it's highly inappropriate for it to be moved before the AFD process completes. Could an admin please comment? --EngineerScotty 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It happens all the time. Why have you moved the header all the way down here?-Splashtalk 00:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already covered in the Signpost. I don't see the use in having another copy of the information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a critical event in Wikipedia's policies and the quality of content on the Internet in general. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep - huge (and ridiculous) media splash. We are newsworthy. - David Gerard 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had no idea the old logs had been deleted. I don't find it overly self-referential, particularly since it was so widely reported. Czyl 22:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Papal curiosities[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Indeed, not for lists as sad as this.--Tagishsimon (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was created a few hours ago to cope with an accumulation of assorted cruft in Pope that seems difficult to be rid of otherwise. However: While I agree that it is not in good shape as it stands, at least some of the information in it is genuinely interesting. If it were rewritten as prose instead of a series of lists and were better organized I think it would be worth keeping, and if I see any progress in that direction I'd be happy to change my vote. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A mild case of working-title-itis for a holding article I admit (g). There does not appear to be a page on History of the Papacy as such - to which the second component could be added, while it might be useful to have a page on links between popes (eg the several Borgias, and the links mentioned in the first part of this piece.

Jackiespeel 14:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manipe F1[edit]

Non-notable site being spammed on various formula 1 articles. violet/riga (t) 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete violet/riga (t) 20:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does having an eye-shattering color scheme make it a candidate for speedy deletion? Delete, in any case. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 20:15:44Z
    • Unfortunately, no. Delete with all reasonable haste, and remove linkspamming. Saberwyn 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What defines a "Non-notable site"? Maybe sounding defensive, but even Wiki started small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.83.72 (talk • contribs)
No, that's a very fair question! See WP:WEB for more information about what some believe to be reasonable criteria for website notability. Note that it's only a proposed guideline, but many of the general ideas it encodes seem to be frequently used in deletion discussions. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-07 01:57:18Z
  • I can't argue, obviously a little too early. Delete away. Manipe 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That nice attitude makes me feel bad for nominating it now. :( violet/riga (t) 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm new and I have to learn someway. Manipe 21:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although, I do have one question. Spamming? Manipe 16:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a little harsh, perhaps, as you only added the link to a few articles. violet/riga (t) 17:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still not allowed I guess Manipe 22:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No? Manipe 00:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The article comprised three things, simply copied and pasted into the article: A press release issued by Hillary Rodham Clinton, a copyrighted article published (and not licensed under the GFDL) by Enchanted Learning, and a Yahoo! mail message. At the bottom of the article it handily provided the URLs of all three. The press release is unacceptable content here anyway, but I speedily deleted the article for the inarguable copyright violation. The author's edit history comment when creating the article, which was "Drafting Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani for President in 2008", lead me to believe that this was not an attempt to create a neutral point of view encyclopaedia article. The article remains listed on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy. Uncle G 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Presidential Candidates[edit]

Copy and pasted news story. Also POV statements. Speedy delete. Velvetsmog 20:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITED[edit]

not worth an entry. --Bachrach44 21:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not? Please explain. Uncle G 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because is is a single sentance article about a series of educational exams held in a small region of the United States. No other detail is provided beyond that. Weak keep, providing the article is expanded beyond substub status. Saberwyn 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't ask why this article is poor, I asked why this series of examinations is "not worth an entry". Uncle G 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies. I tried to get into the mind of the nominator, and this was the only reasoning I could come up with to justify the given 'reason' for deletion. Saberwyn 22:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have nothing to apologize for. I still don't understand the nominator's rationale. But it seems, both from your expansion and some quick research, that there is a fair amount that an encyclopaedia can say on the subject of these examinations, just as it can say things on the subjects of SATs, Senior Cambridge, and A-levels. Keep. Uncle G 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer Uncle G below and expand on my reasoning, ITED isn't worth an encyclopedia article because it's a standardized test used in some high schools in Iowa. There are a ton of standardized tests used in schools accross the world, and only the major ones (SAT, ACT, etc.) are likely to warrant an entry. There is almost no information on the page (other than the definition of ITED) which could not go on Standardized testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bachrach44 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-06 01:18:28 UTC
      • There was little information on the page at the time of nomination, but that wasn't necessarily always going to be the case. There's a difference between (sub)stubs that it is impossible to expand and stubs that just haven't been expanded yet. Uncle G 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • These really are used a lot of places - this is one of the most commonly used standardized test families in the United States. A Google search on "iowa tests" (quoted phrase) will return almost 100,000 results, and give you an idea of how far outside Iowa they reach. CarbonCopy 16:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs a lot of work. These are actually very widely used, not just in Iowa, but you would never know that from the article stub. CarbonCopy 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to add a little content. Conflicted with you, CarbonCopy. Upgrading my vote above to full keep. Saberwyn 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently the tests are used across the nation, not just in Iowa. I went to school in Texas and I remember having to take "Iowa tests." I think those were ITBS, not ITED, but it goes to show the popularity of the various Iowa tests. —Brim 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ITBS appear to be the Iowa tests for the younger grades. Now I have to find that website again and expand this article! Saberwyn - 02:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After conclusin of this debate, if kept, article should be moved to Iowa Tests of Educational Development, with ITED kept as a redirect. Saberwyn 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lachos[edit]

Unknown neologism or joke. Borderline speedy, but {nonsense} wasn't quite applicable. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew_pmk | Talk 21:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A group of students has made up a fictional sexually transmitted disease. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. The article's original author says on its talk page that "Wikipedia is a medium to spread this word and allow for a sharper definition than the one that exists.", which tells us outright that this article is intended to be collaboratively-created original research. Delete. Uncle G 22:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research then. -- Saikiri~ 22:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Nice page btw. Stifle 13:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hedley 01:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burf[edit]

Commercial site, fails WP:WEB proposal. Alexa rank of 124,943, search engine doesn't even work right now, apparently. --W.marsh 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see anything wrong with teh search engine itself, so saying it is strange and getting stranger by the year, is in my view an attack, removing it will leave a substub. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Stifle 13:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, a joke article without apparent meaning is a combination of simple vandalism (G3) and nonsense (A1). -Splashtalk 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Screamer[edit]

Nonsense, vanity, unencyclopedaic

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense. Don't forget the picture, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Knapp[edit]

Vanity. Supposedly the editor of some student-run newspaper. GeeCee 21:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:BIO at this point in time. Saberwyn 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete as A 7 JoJan 10:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as unfunny joke DS 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bisomy x[edit]

Google search shows that this does not exist. The writers language also seems to indicate that this is false. --Spring Rubber 21:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article reads as a hoax. Bergsten 21:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, "biosomy X" is a clever way of saying "female". Gazpacho 21:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burst Media[edit]

Obvious spam/advertisement. Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's just an ad. Bergsten 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a good candidate for Speedy Delete - just spam. Colonel Tom 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPAM. Speedy if you can, otherwise delete. AndyJones 23:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tolkien[edit]

  • Not notable under WP:BIO. karmafist 21:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BIO allows for sculptors [...] whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field and Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Andy Mabbett 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right now, the current version doesn't make it clear how he's exceptional or likely to become a significant part of sculpting history. As for the Birmingham Post article there, it's about the contreversy regarding the statue's location, not Tolkien. karmafist 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several publicly-erected works, including this major piece. This newly-created stub was listed four minutes after its creation, while I was still working in it! The article was already a red-link on Castle Bromwich and Castle Vale. Andy Mabbett 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, I would have placed {{db-bio}} on it in the state it was in. You might consider doing your edits in a temporary user space page, and once they've reached a level where they should be safe from deletion, copy them into their destination article. —Locke Cole 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could do, but recent experience shows that there are some editiors who will take draft material, including editoral notes and reminders, from another users' talk space and paste it, unedited, into the article for which it is intended. Andy Mabbett 20:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it appears to pass WP:BIO. Saberwyn 22:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andy Mabbett -Meegs 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article at this name is an appropriate place to discuss both creator and creator's works. Jkelly 00:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --CBD ✉ 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --TalkManHe is now famous, at least three exceptional works, has red links in the past. Proposed work is controversial, so discussion needs somewhere to take place.
  • Keep - more detail to come Tearlach 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andy Mabbett. Valiantis 14:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's expanded a lot since the initial AfD tag was put on it. —Locke Cole 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed; but, given that the newly-created stub was listed four minutes after its creation, while I was still working in it, that's hardly surprising. Andy Mabbett 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the wub "?!" 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as advertisement.

The HomeoCure[edit]

Advertising. Unencyclopedic. -- Longhair 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Longhair 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spam article. With the recent additions, its leaning towards a vanity speedy IMO. --Syrthiss 22:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Note that the creator (business owner?) has removed the AfD tag. CarbonCopy 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • holy edit conflicts, Batman! :) I restored the AFD tag. --Syrthiss 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • as did you ;) --Syrthiss 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • surprised it didn't flag the conflict, but the creator is still editing away, so the tag may not last. CarbonCopy 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Creator also blanked this page. CarbonCopy 22:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Colonel Tom 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad.AndyJones 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking_therapy[edit]

This article is nonsense, as it descibes a "therapy" which doesn't actually exist. Presumably this, and the one supposed externally linked source on this, are written by people involved in bdsm type erotic spanking. Fictional therapies imagined by a couple people are not a candidate for a wikipedia article. Xyzzyplugh 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. worthawholebean talkcontribs 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought it was going to be about the Russian scientist that found that regular canings were an effective treatment for depression, but this doesn't seem to be about that. Somewhere between OR and a how-to. --Last Malthusian 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. dr.alf 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someones been frequenting those adult websites with 'consentual' spanking between parents and daughters it seems. News flash...they do it for the money, there's no therepy involved :P Nezu Chiza 04:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text KEEP There is a usefulness to spanking therapy. From personal experience I have had a deep need for spankings for fifty years (since I was nine). It has nothing to do with BDSM although many people that need this therapy pass it off as such since BDSM seems more acceptable than the truth. ie Some people desire and need spanking for motivation and love. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.227.49 (talk • contribs)

KEEP - It is an emerging therapy. A few users not understanding it doesn't make it imaginary. It is NOT related to BDSM or erotic spanking. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.145.76 (talk • contribs)

  • It may well be an emerging therapy, but it has not emerged yet, and as far as I can tell is practically nonexistant. A single website about it, which seems to be written by a single person, does not qualify a topic for wikipedia.--Xyzzyplugh 15:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El Vent[edit]

NN (appears to only be about a Windows Workgroup) and Vanity (edit history on Image:Elvent.jpg says "This is a symbol for El Vent. I made this myself, anyone else who wants to use it please contact me.") Interiot 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic, probably vanity --Mecanismo 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. May the force be with you! - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stefán H. Ófeigsson[edit]

A date-rapist with an university degree, this is tabloid material, not encyclopedic information. There is also a doubt whether this coverage is legal according to the Icelandic Privacy protection laws. The Google search "Stefán H. Ófeigsson" -Wikipedia yields 57 results. Bjarki 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Icelandic version of this article is also being voted on, the current tally is 7 delete votes and 1 neutral, these are all from admins (all regularly active users are admins in iswiki) so 8 out of 15 admins have voted. Keep this is in mind when assessing whether or not this is considered a notable or encyclopedic subject matter by Icelanders. --Bjarki 13:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The vote has finished in is:, final result: 10 deletes and 1 neutral, Ævar did not vote. The article has been deleted.--Bjarki 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6 of those votes (since you're counting anonymous votes) state reasons that have nothing to do with the notability of the subject as such ("it has only caused trouble", "it's harmful to the Icelandic Wikipedia", "it will undermine the image of the site", "it's indecent"). I also think it's quite discourteous of you to place your comment above everyone elses (rather than in ascending time order) in bold as if what you have to say on the matter was somehow much more important than what everyone else has to say about it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally counted a anonymous vote, this has now been corrected. You are probably leaving it out on purpose but 4 of those 7 votes say that the article is unneeded, additional two votes are from users who have made it perfectly clear that they think this is an unencyclopedic subject (one of those users is me). This comment is not a answer to a specific vote so it makes most sense to place it at the top. I am the one who started the vote now, am I not allowed to amend my original message as new information appears, am I not? The comment is bolded to draw attention to it, the fact that another language version of this article is being voted on is quite significant whatever your opinion on it is. --Bjarki 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My comment wasn't intended to provide a complete synopsis of the votes but merely to point out the fallacious arguments being put forward in some of them. To state that this article should be deleted because "it has only caused trouble" or "will undermine the image of the site" is similar to suggesting that the article on John Seigenthaler Sr. be deleted for similar reasons.
Regarding my comment on your top-posting that comment related to netiquette, it was not in any way related to the contents of your post, so don't make it out to be. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the vote on Meta explicitly overrules the vote on is:. That vote is currently suspended (pending anybody providing valid arguments for the deletion) with the voting at 8 keep, 0 delete (and I will be voting keep there if/when voting reopens). Anyway, what users of the is: wiki consider notable or encylopaedic has no bearing on what users of en: feel.Thryduulf 14:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ævar is the only user at is: who contends that this meta vote he prematurely started is actually something which matters. --Bjarki 14:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the fact that it was prematurely started reason enough to abandon the whole idea of getting third party input on the matter? Might it not be advisable to refactor the page and try again? One might conclude that your refusal for a vote on meta is due to the wider community being in favor of keeping the article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several users, including Biekko agreed that a binding vote should take place on meta to decide the future of the article, without any mention of a local vote being held first. Biekko later made a post that began the current vote where he stated (yet again, this time direcly and not by a vote) that a binding vote should be held on the Icelandic Wikipedia first and and only in the case of the result of that vote not being clear would a vote on meta be held. The terms of the vote [26] were later modified by another user to state that whatever the majority decided to do with the article (options being keep and delete) would be the outcome of the vote. So the only way I see this ending in a vote on meta is if the vote were to end in a tie.
I haven't voted in the Icelandic vote because I think that a vote on meta should be held as was the original binding agreement. I don't consider it the private matter of individual Wikipedia editions to decide whether articles on certain topics which are clearly considered notable on the biggest Wikipedia edition should be included. This is not a case of the Icelandic Wikipedia merely having such extreme standard on notability either, it doesn't, we have tens of articles on subjects much less notable than this one, this is a case of selective enforcement on one subject. Furtheremore when people are listing harmful to the project as their reasons for deleting something that in my opinion is something that warrants a project-wide opinion. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5 people had voted in favour of the meta solution when you started the vote there, 9 people have voted in the local elections thus acknowledging it. It surprises me that you are such a huge formalist all of the sudden that you are speaking about "binding" agreements on wikipedia! on the basis of 5 votes! I did not foresee that the vote on meta could possibly continue and in any case it would be very time consuming to translate the debate so I sought to end it without outside involvement and the community agreed. You may think votes like "this is damaging the project" are worthless and I would agree with you if it was about controversial but obviously significant material but this is not it, it is my sincere believe that this is tabloid stuff with no encyclopedic value at all. With that I must say that I do understand and respect your point of view, I simply disagree. This is nothing personal, you have made the Icelandic Wikipedia into what it is and I hope you will keep up the good work, I will continue to support you in doing good things as I have done in the past. :) --Bjarki 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it has no encyclopedic value at all why did you propose that it be deleted but stated that you'd accept the removal of the criminal case, the image and "preposterous categories" (presumably the rapist and/or science web categories) as a compromise? One can only assume that you do think the subject is notable but are uncomfortable with having certain information in the article. Since I think the subject itself is notable (and would be with or without the criminal case) I originally wrote an article article on it with the same goals that I have when writing any other article, to explain the topic in question from a fair and neutral point of view. To write an article on this man and not include what he's arguably most notable for would would be biased an unneutral.
Regarding my future with the project (iswiki) I don't think I'll continue to contribute to it. The only reason I ever did was with the goal helping create a free, unbiased and neutral information resource. Although I do realize that I could continue to make uncontroversial edits there — which I dare say applies to all of my approximately 13,000 edits save for around two dozen on this topic — I belive that an encyclopedia needs articles on controversial topics as well. This article is unanimously (save for the nomination) considered notable enough to exist on the English Wikipedia and I consider it a major flaw and a severe sign of systemic bias that the Icelandic Wikipedia doesn't consider this a subject that it can have an article on, especially considering that this is a matter local to Iceland which, all other factors being equal, should work in its favor on the Icelandic Wikipedia and against it on the English one. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article but removing the references to the rape case would be a lousy solution, I suggested that as a compromise like adult people sometimes do while trying to reach an agreement on something. --Bjarki 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a biographical article on Stefán H. Ófeigsson, an Icelander born on June 20, 1977. He holds a masters degree (MSc) in space engineering (one of the few, if not the only Icelander to hold such a degree). He has played an instrumental role in investigating the possibility of Iceland joining the European Space Programme for which he received approximately US$7,000 (450,000 ISK) funding in 2003 from Tæknisjóður (now Rannís, The Icelandic Centre for Research [27]).

The man is 28 years old, he received a grant for his ESA project, a project has not given any results so far and will probably not continue now. A university degree is hardly enough for a Wikipedia article, even if it is a rare one.

On November 17, 2005, he was sentenced to 2½ years in prison by the Reykjavík district court for raping an 18 year old girl in November the previous year, in a case which, upon his sentencing, was widely covered in the Icelandic media. It was covered on the front page of DV the third most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~17% market share and on the opening fold (page 2) of Fréttablaðið (The Newspaper), the most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland (~65% market share).

When the case was at its peak, 7 of the 20 highest ranking queries in Ebmla, an internet search engine run by Morgunblaðið (The Morning Paper), the second most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~45% market share whose website mbl.is ranks as the second most visited website in Iceland [28], were directly related to the case. On the web, the case has been covered by that website, and on December 3, 2005 by visir.is, the most popular website in Iceland. The article on visir.is cited the Icelandic Wikipedia article, which in itself marks a milestone for the Icelandic Wikipedia, since it had never before been cited by any mainstream news source (see citation record).

These media outlets as well as the search engine operate on a market of 290,000 people. There is nothing unique about DV's (the Icelandic counterpart of the UK's The Sun) coverage, that paper features a different pedophile/rapist/drug dealer/murderer on its cover every week. Wikipedia's role in creating news in this case does not speak for the encyclopedic value of the article.
The case hasn't just been covered by what you'd call one tabloid, it has been covered on the front page of two newspapers and various other news mediums, this man is more notable than you make him out to be. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a greater coverage than the average rapist is likely to get. DV names the person and blow their face all over the cover, Fréttablaðið often mentiones the person by name and perhaps includes a small picture, Morgunblaðið reports about the verdict but does not reveal the identity of the person except in homicide cases. All of this is the "standard procedure" of the Icelandic media, there is nothing special about this case.
All these things add up to notability:
  1. Having a master's degree in a rarely practiced scientific field.
  2. Media coverage of the criminal case which was farabove the avarge of the typical criminal case. This also is a great example of how Icelandic media covers its criminals.
  3. His work related to the ESA.
  4. The high-profile removal of this articles from the most popular science website in Iceland which got covered on the most visited news website in Iceland.
—Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a space engineer, Stefán had written 16 articles for Vísindavefurinn (The Science Web) [29], a science website in Icelandic and English which ranks as the 13th most popular website in Iceland and the most popular one dealing with science. All of these answers were removed without explanation from the site; this fact is included in the article and was the subject of the article at visir.is, which cited the article on the Icelandic Wikipedia.

Vísindavefurinn is a website where students and teachers at the University of Iceland answer questions from readers, his contributions there were insignificant, the average Wikipedian has probably contributed more information to the web.--Bjarki 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that it was covered on the most popular web news medium in Iceland makes it notable. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Newsworthy in a tiny community, not encyclopedic. --Bjarki 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you will find all people from Iceland unencyclopedic because it happens to be a relatively small community? - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The person this article discusses is clearly notable in Icelandic society, every bit of information in the article is verifiable and is sourced in the References section, I therefore vote keep. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person is getting front page coverage in Icelandic newspapers. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 22:58
    A guy who beat up a man in a wheelchair is also getting a front page coverage in Icelandic newspapers, it isn't a really hard place to get to. --Bjarki 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikipedia:Biography this article fits the criteria for inclusion, Stefán is a person "achieving renown or notoriety for [his] involvement in newsworthy events". Every bit of information in the article is also verifiable, it can be expanded, and every bit of information is cited. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is your feeling, I can't see how he fulfils this criteria. --Bjarki 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd hate to repeat myself but it's because he "[achived] notoriety for [his] involvement in newsworthy events", the article is verifiable and is properly cited. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So pretty much every criminal who gets in the news is a encyclopedia material? --Bjarki 23:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    His degree, his work relating to the ESA, the criminal case, the news coverage of it is all encyclopedic material. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it is up to the community to decide if they believe that. --Bjarki 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • n, k --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 00:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article may fail "100-year test", but passes a rapist equivalent of the "Professor test". That was a very weird sentence. In any case, the article is WP:V, so I don't see any pressing need to delete it. Jkelly 00:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. fits within criteria of WP:Bio Garion96 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Garion96. Mo0[talk] 00:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even without the rape case he would be notable as the only Icelander with a space science degree and his significant contributions to Iceland's space industry. That he has become notorious as well confirms his notability for me. I haven't looked in detail but there does not appear to be anything in the article that is not verifiable, and as long as we stick verifiable information in the public domain then I don't see any trouble with privacy laws. Thryduulf 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Duk 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — not every person, even those covered by a major news source, is relevant material for a biography on Wikipedia. But if it is someone who has been on the front page of major newspapers of their country repeatedly, then that seems to satisfy it for me. We have a huge article for Natalee Holloway, I don't see why this is much different on the whole, other than it is based in Iceland. --Fastfission 03:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any of the degree in its context in this low population country (first degrees in a country/subject combinationwould be notable always, don't know if this one is first), the ESA activity in respect of his country joining it or the significant crime and press coverage would be sufficient qualification. Jamesday 07:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Fastfission. His degree is instrumental here. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • By all means, Keep!Rvalles 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Fastfission. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not every criminal, however many front pages they get, deserves a WP article. But per Thryduulf and Fastfission, this guy is notable for his work. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find any papers by him on web of science.Geni 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; seems notable as "rocket-scientist rapist". *Dan T.* 13:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Procedurally, I tend to dislike the fact that the article was apparently created on en: Wikipedia to bring about a change of venue in response to a challenge at is: Wikipedia.
I don't think having a Master's degree and essentially no publications makes one a noteworthy scholar. Throughout the discussion I have seen numerous references to his being the only or one of the only Icelanders to hold such a degree and no supporting citation or reference of this fact, so I think basing decisions on that fact is questionable. From what I have been able to find, he was a minor functionary in a government-sponsored technological and economic development agency who was working on proposals for cooperation with the ESA.
If the guy's notability derives from his work, as many claim above, can someone find something published about him prior to the rape scandal? So far, we just have (1) that he was recorded in the census and (2) a line-item in a government report that confirms he got a grant for his project.
I think the substance of the article betrays a lack of perspective on encyclopedic scope: Someone's house got egged? Some Q&A items were removed from a website? --Tabor 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not verifiable. No English language sources. English language Wikipedia needs English sources. I couldn't find any English language sources on any English language search engine. (I'm going through the list of rapists and if the person is alive and: 1)no sources or 2)no evidence been put in jail for crime, I take them off the list. I try to fix article problem if practical instead of removal.)--FloNight 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm.... I agree that this should be deleted, but that must be one of the least valid reasons to delete an article I've ever read. Zocky 16:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WAS 4.250 16:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. There's nothing notable about his career or crime, at least the article and sources don't claim that he is. The smallness of a country doesn't make its citizens individually more notable - his B.Sc. degree is not notable by itself, even if it is in rocket science. The only other thing that could make him notable is the rape case. Since we are not in the business of listing everyone in the world who whas been sentenced for a crime, that doesn't make him notable either, even if it appeared on "front pages of Icelandic newspapers". Slovenia is nearly 10 times as big as Iceland is, and I have written for and appeared in newspapers and on national TV. My name was even used once in a crossword in Delo, our national newspaper. That alone doesn't make me notable. Zocky 16:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Chambers[edit]

If this is a "minor celebrity" I would hate to know their definition of non-noteable. "Danny Chambers" +happyrobot = 22 hits. Definitely NN, probably vanity also HackJandy 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Have a nice day! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gatherer[edit]

Tagged for speedy without a reason. Is a barely non-speedy since I can determine it's a website. AfD should consider whether it is encyclopedic or not. -Splashtalk 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just a database. Though I would link to it from the main article (and I have). -- Grev 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded this article significantly since it was nominated. It's now a viable stub that asserts the notability of the subject (i.e., Gatherer was the first resource of its kind to be officially offered by the company that makes the game). Sommers 14:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with prejudice per Sommers. I am a representative of Wizards of the Coast. Stifle 13:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, extremely minor aspect of MTG culture. The link to it in the main article is enough. Andrew Levine 19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I agree that the topic is pretty minor. (I didn't create the article; I just saw it on AfD and expanded it.) Still, it might be worth merging at least a mention (beyond the link, I mean) into the main Magic: The Gathering article if it gets deleted. –Sommers (Talk) 00:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Jenkins[edit]

Vanity or joke page - information in the article is about a 32-year old with absolutely nothing special (specifically, it lists date of birth, full name, and schools attended; nothing more). A google search found nothing indicating that this Robin Jenkins is important. (The so-named person born in 1912 is another matter [a noted author] - so this page can be considered a squatter on the namespace. John Broughton 22:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, then put up an article on the 1912 author. BD2412 T 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree, nothing interesting. Bergsten 23:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. PJM 23:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete waste of time. --mexaguil 02:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio Sparky 02:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There already is an article on the other Robin Jenkins, but it is a stub at present.Jon Rob 15:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. Either recreate as redirect to Robin Jenkins (writer), OR move the writer to this namespace. Saberwyn - 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted: practically just a bunch of links. Enochlau 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dracoy[edit]

Blatant advertising for a gaming website. Listing here to see if the site is still significant enough to be worth an article. Saikiri~ 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think this rates an article; certainly not the article in its current form! Colonel Tom 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism (general)[edit]

Borderline speedy. To quote from the talk page: "I really cant believe this confused nonsense has been here for over 6 months in this parlous state without rectification or deletion". -Splashtalk 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - confusing nonsense. PJM 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it were written more clearly, it would be a dicdef. B.Wind 04:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for an unclear definition. We already have Mechanism (science). Bmdavll talk 03:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 12:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lux Middle School[edit]

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.

How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.

Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.

We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.

Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.

Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:

  1. It will help convince those who wish to delete such articles that given a chance they will grow if less time is spent arguing in AFD.
  2. It will help determine what form a merge candidate will take.
  3. It will also help us reach a consensus of the type of school article that is worthy of being kept without merging.

I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Move the lengthy and redundant discussion elsewhere, this is not the appropriate forum to list merge candidates. Silensor 09:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((the following is a redundant comment, unless you are reading it for the first time). You're wrong. This is where people see the school bickering. Few go to WP:SCH. But if you feel you have to move it go ahead I will not revert. David D. (Talk) 15:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with district per WP:SCH voted in good faith.Gateman1997 19:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best to keep. Kappa 13:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per WP:SCH --Rob 08:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mickle Middle School[edit]

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per WP:SCH. AndyJones 23:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SCH. — Haeleth Talk 23:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, obscure, void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, no need to be here -Refusetobesilenced 23:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is being cleanedd Yuckfoo 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. If the project manages to clean it up, the merge can be undone. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.

How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.

Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.

We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.

Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.

Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:

  1. It will help convince those who wish to delete such articles that given a chance they will grow if less time is spent arguing in AFD.
  2. It will help determine what form a merge candidate will take.
  3. It will also help us reach a consensus of the type of school article that is worthy of being kept without merging.

I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Move the lengthy and redundant discussion elsewhere, this is not the appropriate forum to list merge candidates. Silensor 09:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. This is where people see the school bickering. Few go to WP:SCH. But if you feel you have to move it go ahead I will not revert. David D. (Talk) 15:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per WP:SCH proposal. This is voted in good faith.Gateman1997 19:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best to keep and allow to expand naturally, failing that merge per WP:SCH. Kappa 13:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per WP:SCH --Rob 08:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 12:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 07:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lefler Middle School[edit]

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per WP:SCH. — Haeleth Talk 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, obscure, void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please why are you doing this luigi Yuckfoo 00:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge until it's cleaned. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.

How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.

Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.

We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.

Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.

Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:

  1. It will help convince those who wish to delete such articles that given a chance they will grow if less time is spent arguing in AFD.
  2. It will help determine what form a merge candidate will take.
  3. It will also help us reach a consensus of the type of school article that is worthy of being kept without merging.

I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept.

  • Keep. Move the lengthy discussion somewhere else please, this is not the appropriate forum to list merge candidates. Silensor 09:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. This is where people see the school bickering. Few go to WP:SCH. But if you feel you have to move it go ahead I will not revert. David D. (Talk) 15:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in present state per WP:SCH, this is a good faith vote.Gateman1997 22:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep middle schools are important and should be discussed somewhere in WP. Kappa 13:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per WP:SCH --Rob 08:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 12:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Middle School[edit]

Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 23:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per WP:SCH.

    Luigi30, this is four schools in a row you've nominated for deletion without providing a valid reason (notability is not a criterion for deletion). This is an extremely contentious issue, and your actions are likely to be counter-productive: every school nominated for deletion in this way is going to convince more and more inclusionists that they cannot afford to compromise. Please try reading the proposal at WP:SCH and adopting it: it is the best compromise that we who dislike non-notable school stubs are likely to get. — Haeleth Talk 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a criterion for deletion (if it can be proven. It's even part of the A7 vanity speedy criterion. The problem is that school notability is contentious. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, obscure, void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is too many schools for deletion already Yuckfoo 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge until it's expanded passed substub level. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the current proposal being discussed on the talk pages at WP:SCH. A Keep or Merge vote is being touted as a compromise that might get us out of school AFD hell. Presently people create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, it is preferable, and takes much less energy, to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district, either a local education authority or other school system. This should be done while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article.

How would this compromise work? One solution is to tag new school articles that are considered candidates for merging with a template such as the following, template:schoolzone, to warn those unfamiliar with the process from tagging it for AFD. This will also serve as a holding category and bring to attention schools that need to be merged or expanded.

Merging is appropriate if the school article is both below three sentences and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use.

We now have an good chance to test this proposal since User:Bp28 has just created the school district page Lincoln Public Schools including new pages for all the middle schools and high schools in the district. Already four of the middle schools have been tagged for deletion by User:Luigi30. Do we really have the energy for 11 middle school AFD's? I have tagged the remaining schools with the schoolzone template in the hope it will prevent the others reaching AFD.

Here is a description of the current state or all the schools involved in this discussion.

Lets see how these grow over the next week and then discuss which ones if any are merge candidates after that period of time. This will be a useful exercise for several reasons:

  1. It will help convince those who wish to delete such articles that given a chance they will grow if less time is spent arguing in AFD.
  2. It will help determine what form a merge candidate will take.
  3. It will also help us reach a consensus of the type of school article that is worthy of being kept without merging.

I urge everyone here to participate in this project as an exercise in good faith. David D. (Talk) 00:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made an error in listing these. I thought middle schools were delete as non-notable and high schools were to be kept. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Move the long discussion somewhere else please, this is not the appropriate forum to list merge candidates. Silensor 09:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're wrong. This is where people see the school bickering. Few go to WP:SCH. But if you feel you have to move it go ahead I will not revert. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with district per WP:SCH proposal. This vote is made in good faith.Gateman1997 19:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not much point merging but wouldn't be too evil. Kappa 13:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're still having this debate, are we. —RaD Man (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factually accurate. --Oldak Quill 22:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per WP:SCH --Rob 08:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per school district idea. That is one good comprimise for deletionist like me :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 12:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 07:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Enochlau 01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweclockers.com[edit]

Alexa states 31k, All of 15 hits on Google, nothing noteable either (and certainly nothing in english). This is very far from the recommended guidlines of WP:WEB HackJandy 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 12:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 05:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NewsMax misinformation[edit]

Tagged as speedy, but disparaging one's subject is ok in this case if one has reliable references that you are citing. AfD should take a look to see that this isn't simply a POV screed or something of that ilk. -Splashtalk 23:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV from the title and throughout the article --Mecanismo 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with NewsMax. Looks like a POV-fork to keep criticism out of main article. Jkelly 00:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page indicates that this is indeed the case. -Splashtalk 00:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, Speedy merge, and invite many editors to watchlist. Jkelly 00:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to reduce POV problems (particularly the preamble) and merge with NewsMax, preferably in a "Controversies" section. B.Wind 04:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rewrite, in that order. Needs a heavy clean up, but examples of Newsmax misinformation should certainly be in the main article. It's not like it's very long. --Last Malthusian 09:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Reliable sources of misinformation should be in the main article. -FD— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.65 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 December 2005
  • Merge Newsmax doesn't deserve two pages grazon 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into NewsMax, although most of the article is POV and should not be merged. Rhobite 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeper Rhobite, Derktar 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; no sources cited. Johnleemk | Talk 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue flag[edit]

Originally posted as nationalist propaganda. Content is so profoundly banal it is not even clear whether it is worth trying to verify. Might be a candidate for Wiktionary but I almost wonder what the point would be. Twp 23:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Turkish people if it can be verified, delete if not. B.Wind 03:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete per B.Wind. Stifle 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - not much here to merge --rogerd 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modified.ca[edit]

Non-noteable, does not satisfy any of the recommended guidelines in WP:WEB. Alexa 1.7M, Google doesn't seem to drum up anything but other forums and the website itself claims "We have 1723 registered users" (5,000 recommend) HackJandy 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of web sites.--Alhutch 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was started on 16 October 2005 by 209.112.216.22 who spelled the name wrong. Perhaps I should have AfDed it then, rather than correcting the name and cleaning it up. But, I didn't want to WP:BITE. It has not been edited since I moved it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Stifle 12:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 05:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Campbells Bay Primary School[edit]

Delete insignificant --Kennyisinvisible 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preferably, I would like to see an article on the Auckland school district so that we could merge it there. As it stands, the article is only a tiny stub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with city of district per WP:SCH proposal which this article currently fails.Gateman1997 19:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this useful stub per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 12:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 05:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (just). It's borderline, but I don't see any point in relisting this one. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh[edit]

This page doesn't seem to follow WWIN-Dictionary. Send it over to Wiktionary is they've not got an entry on it...which I'm sure they do. Also it's more of a name etymology article than it is a definition, which makes it somewhat worse, in my opinion. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) This is not an important entry into wikepedia please consider deletion from damon[reply]

  • I remember seeing this and trying to decide if I wanted to AFD it, but I don't. It's a weak delete from me. Stifle 12:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --rogerd 05:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

(Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh (2nd nomination) for new AFD)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (just). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WAYS[edit]

Article doesn't assert the significance of this organization. Delete. Catamorphism 23:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to their web site they are UNESCO-sponsored and have held at least one conference. I'm undecided on this one. — RJH 17:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Seems encyclopedic. Stifle 12:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wingerized[edit]

Neologism. Google shows only 46 unique hits for "wingerized" and one for "wingerization." howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 00:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hyper-endowment has been around LONG before Doug Winger ever entered the scene. And this is a neo-neologism, I've never even SEEN it used in the furry art community. Nezu Chiza 04:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 12:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --rogerd 05:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_December_5&oldid=1081091994"