Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 16

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

Purge server cache

November 16[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1-2-3FileConvert[edit]

Delete. Advert material, much of which is reproduced from the product's site. No demonstration of any particular notability either. cjllw | TALK 08:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1983 (The Band)[edit]

Non-notable band; no entry in All Music Guide. Jasmol 05:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The albums appear self-produced/distributed (there is no "Dunbar Dunbar Records"), band fails WP:MUSIC. --anetode╔╝ 07:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possible hoax, definitely not notable. No inbound links. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably not a gigging band. Probably a hoax. Geogre 15:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC. --Aurochs
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Absolute threshold of hearing. Clearly not deleting outright, but obviously not keeping the content. -Splashtalk 04:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute threshold of pain[edit]

WP:NOT a blog. --Aurochs

Comment - it's already linked from Psychoacoustics. I think there ought to be something there. Not this, obviously, but something. - AdelaMae 23:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a redirect would not be useful. "Threshold of pain" is defined in absolute threshold of hearing and "absolute threshold of pain" isn't. Delete still seems the appropriate option. Sliggy 01:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cochrane[edit]

Posted all in one shot by an anon editor who has not responded to a request for sources. Not one reference or source, no names of a single book or album despite claims of being a prolific artist, no links, no google hits. This looks like a hoax to me, but I dedided to put it here instead of speedy deleting it in case I am wrong. Gamaliel 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism under speedy category G3 or even A6 attack page as the article emphasises his drug use. 245 Google results for "Adam Cochrane" singer and none of the early ones validate this article see [1]. Not listed on Allmusic.com and not sources provided by author despite request. By the way, the article claims he was born in 1954 and started singing protest songs about the Vietnam War during the middle of it - he would have been 14 or 15. Capitalistroadster 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems more likely hoax than attack, but it's gotta go. MCB 22:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as hoax ...shotgun blast "shattered his synapse"... Pete.Hurd 00:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anacostia_Diaries[edit]

Self-promotion and vanity of an unknown blog author. Timecop 11:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Worthless. Yet another shitstain on the wall of the Internet. --86.2.56.178 12:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, vanity here is insulting to Wikipedia. --Skrewler 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Just Vanity. Adamn 12:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with above. --Depakote 12:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn blog. As a poster on the Dceiver blog notes: site is averaging a 6:1 spam-to-actual-comment ratio. Dottore So 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable blogcruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Femmina 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity blogcruft. --W.marsh 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kind of a consensus to delete, but on the other hand there are suggestions here to redirect this to Tri-Cities, Virginia. I have looked at that article and the heading there says "also known as ... the Appomattox Basin". I am calling this a redirect there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appomattox Basin[edit]

This region is part of the Richmond-Petersburg region (Richmond VA MSA) which already has an article. The Tri-Cities, Virginia article has significantly more information and covers the same geographic area. MPS 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom MPS 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is totally rendundant and less informative than the other articles about the area. Vaoverland 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about we change it to a redirect to Tri-Cities, Virginia? Vaoverland 04:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the fact that I trust Vaoverland's opinions on issues relating to the geography of Virginia. Youngamerican 19:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect, valid topic that should be discussed in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Appomatox Basin" article is intended to be a geographic area, not a geological feature. Like Manhattan Island or the Outer Banks of North carolina, the Appomatox Basin is a description of a region that is essentially identical to the Tri-Cities, Virginia area. If you want to talk about slope the river basin etc, this information can be contained in Appomattox River. Reconsider? MPS 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the encycl;opaedic content of the article is so much smaller than the surrounding furniture (including the regional template) as to be ridiculous. I believe Vaoverland is well versed on this area's coverage in WP and so rather than vote merge, I support delete. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aspects of evolution[edit]

This is a Wikipedia:POV fork of the evolution page written from the original research perspective of User:Ed_Poor. As such, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Joshuaschroeder 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, User:Ed_Poor moved the article to a different namespace. This is very disrespectful of the Wikipedia community. --Joshuaschroeder 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved it back - pending resolution of this afd. Vsmith 16:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And now it is gone? Looks like Ed has created a new Wikipedia:WikiProject aspects of evolution hmm... and deleted the original Aspects of evolution? Most irregular I'd say. Vsmith 18:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is this allowed? --Joshuaschroeder 18:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not the last of the self-appointed expert on WP:NPOV Ed's attempts to contravene WP:NPOV to promote pseudoscience. Dunc|☺ 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this was a good-faith effort (and not intentionally POV), but as a practical matter it is written from a specific point of view and is original research, and as such should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. More silliness by Ed Vsmith 02:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with regret, unless fixed. Although the nominator is correct, in theory I think this could be fixed if the author could supply good source citations to show that the distinctions he's making are not original. I think it is possible that one could tell almost the same story essentially in the form of linked quotations from recognized authorities. The current debate on evolution is my worst nightmare because it is characterized by dogma and lack of clear thinking and intellectual honesty on both sides. The evolution of animals does not necessarily mean they evolved in exactly the way Charles Darwin, or George Gaylord Simpson, or Stephen Jay Gould said they did, just as the existence of God does not necessarily mean that everything the Bible says about God is true. I guess what I'm saying is that I hate to vote delete on a very good, clear, reasonably neutral essay. In its present state though, it should be deleted for the reason the nominator gives. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An absolutely textbook case of content forking and it's shameful to see this editor still prone to them. Delete without merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV brainstorm. Gazpacho 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A Man In Black. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bak Sin Hee[edit]

NN. No non-wikipedia hits. Descendall 11:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would expect Korean people to get little hits for their Americanized name. Asked for Korean searches on Korean notice board. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dubbing multiple in a country where a lot of people rely on the dubbing is notable enough for me. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, establishes notability. Kappa 12:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. PJM 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TV voice dub actress with no IMDB entry as far as I can determine. Andrew Lenahan - <FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm erring on the side of inclusion on this one, but I'd ideally like to hear from a native speaker of Korean to see if there's any sort of public awareness of this person. Some dub voice actors are public figures in their own right, but some are hardly more publically visible or known than boom mike operators. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough for me. --Vsion 17:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of North or South Korea-related deletions. to get local knowledge. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to avoid systemic bias, but not by bending the rules too far the other way. Until or unless a Korean or someone knowledgeable about Korea verifies this, it has to be delete as unverifiable. Marcus22 20:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please to help balance out our bias Yuckfoo 23:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IMO, this actress doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant an article. --ApolloBoy 03:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is already an article in the korean wikipedia [2] Astrokey44 13:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. --Andylkl 17:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Astrokey44. Hall Monitor 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 06:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balle Klorin[edit]

Hoax. Balle Klorin was the name of a comedy show character in 70's Norway. There is no article on the actor who played him, so nowhere to redirect to. Punkmorten 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 22:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • either delete or redirect to whatever show he was a cvharacter in. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have no article on the show either. Punkmorten 15:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I'm disappointed that such a major event in Norwegian culture isn't documented yet (the comedy show character, that is, not this guy...). ;) Sam Vimes 13:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Norghan[edit]

Advert for a shareware game. Most google results seem to be automatically generated download page mirrors. --W.marsh 15:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The neverending task of keeping Wikipedia free of ads. Jasmol 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, not an advert, download.com says it's a popular download. [3]. Kappa 18:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious advertisement for obscure game. Nandesuka 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Download.com may say it's popular, but it has just 1708 downloads since it was uploaded there, 35 last week. A quick search will yield games with far more downloads. - Mgm|(talk) 20:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 22:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bdugan[edit]

Unverifiable neologism... some kind of fratcruft it seems. --W.marsh 16:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; this is an entry for which pure Google hits do not tell much: since Dugan is a common surname, bdugan is often the nickname of someone named B. Dugan; in particular, the Google hits seem mostly to refer to the username of a “Ben Dugan”, possibly the one mentioned in the article. Delete as hoax. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, not a hoax. I'll speedy... but this just happens to be my flatmate :-) I can vouch for him - he didn't write it! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beefboy[edit]

Orphaned Vanity article of a guy whose only claim to fame is writing for a website with an Alexa rank of 402,376. --W.marsh 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Jtmichcock 02:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I believe the term is "blogcruft". Spondoolicks 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bella's Anorexia[edit]

Absolutely reads like a joke at the moment. Possibly an insult page if we knew who "Bella" is. The main problem is that I can't verify that this an actual disorder, checking with Google [4] (and other search terms) and my old Abnormal Psychology textbook. Thus it seems unverifiable. --W.marsh 19:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. This is an attack page, from what the talk page says. Pilatus 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db-attack. PJM 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 23:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rongey[edit]

Unverifiable... the few results for "Ben Rongey" are just results of high school athletic events. The article seems to be a joke/hoax of some sort. --W.marsh 23:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - non-notable biography. Also block 70.156.107.40 for repeated vandalization of this AfD. --Aurochs
  • Delete as unverifiable at best. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seeing exactly 0 verification on Google makes me doubt notability (as well as veracity) - Andre Engels 09:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was leaning towards delete before, but that previous anon message has convinced me. delete. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 05:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet votes[edit]

  • Keep BEN RONGEY works outside of your internet, sorry if "googling" him didn't work. Try harder, dig deeper. It's the BEN RONGEY way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.149.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep It's a shame that real art goes unnoticed and scoffed at in these rather troubled times, but I was comforted when I noticed Ben Rongey's name on this site. The city of Winnipeg owes so much to that amazing young man. I ask you to work hard into completeing his fragmented article in order to bring BEN RONGEY to us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.107.40 (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 keep (no consensus). Vote count, for those interested is 12d-8k. But has anyone considered merging this somewhere? The article looks really stubby. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Eustace Preparatory School[edit]

Non-notable schoolcruft. Apart from the table, the article's empty, so apparently even the author doesn't think it's all that notable. --Aurochs

  • keep please the author probably thinks it is notable too or else they would not make the article Yuckfoo 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please. nn. Dottore So 23:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please come comment on the compromise proposed in WP:SCH. In the meantime, this isn't an article; it isn't even a stub. As Wikipedia is still not a directory, delete this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contains useful information, and the fact that it is presented in a table doesn't change that. CalJW 02:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please join us at Wikipedia Talk:Schools and take part in setting future policy for school articles. Denni ☯ 05:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Vegaswikian 06:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages or the phone directory. - Andre Engels 09:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The table on the right hand side is grey, not yellow. —RaD Man (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And people wonder why deletionists continue to oppose identical school articles when the arguments are so heavily stacked against them ;-). Delete, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages or the grey pages or any other kind of listing of ordinary businesses or public services. --Last Malthusian 10:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nn Catchpole 11:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Nandesuka 12:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Wikipedia is not a lot of things, and this article is not a YP advert. Silensor 17:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a stub or an article either. - Mgm|(talk) 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are 52 faculty members serving 797 students, 8% of whom are of color.
So if I understand things correctly, the students have 52 servants and 92% of the students are see-through because they don't have a color. And on top of all that, there's no date attached to that statement (which is very time-sensitive). Please fix if you want any changce of me voting to keep this thing. - Mgm|(talk) 19:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{sofixit}. "Of color" is standard english. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would if I knew which color they had. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"of color" is an anachronism—it's 1950's clueless bigotry IMHO BlankVerse 16:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's colored. Of color is current. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many "gentlemen of colour" would disagree there. It's an outdated euphemism used in the name of political correctness by people who are too scared to say "black". Chris talk back 20:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"People of color" is not an euphemism for black. It includes all individuals of non-european background. Please see [5], for one of many syle guides that discuss this. Further discussion on my talk page at your request. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that rather missing the point that the statement is itself indicative of racial bias? I have absolutely no idea how many kids in my children's schools are white, brown, pink or green because as far as I can tell it makes no appreciable difference to their attainment or behaviour. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does convey information specific to this school including: (1) when the school was founded; (2) that it was founded by a particular Catholic order (as opposed to being a diocesan school); (3) that it is co-ed; and (4) its size. All of these facts vary significantly bewteen schools and can be useful to someone who wants to know.
    • Maybe, but who wants to know? Remember, Wikipedia is not a tool for helping you choose a school for your child, nor is it a directory of schools. Chris talk back 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black sheep bar[edit]

Non-notable bar in Croydon - I've been there and there are dozens like it within a mile, let alone in London as a whole. Mtiedemann 14:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirected to List of blogging terms. Deletion was the overwhelming consensus, but the redirect is not harmful and gives basically the same effect without loss of history. Friday (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blog hopping[edit]

Not notable concept/dicdef Skrewler 09:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's a fairly notable practice in popular culture -ryan-d 11:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to List of blogging terms, because the definition is already there. --Timecop 11:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Anville 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into List of blogging terms. Sam Hocevar 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, definition is already present. --Depakote 12:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another crappy blog term. (Also, stop deleting this fucking VfD for no reason, thanks) --86.2.56.178 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless definition. We might as well have an article on pressing the space bar. Carina22 12:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous, never heard the phrase in my life. Slang word, Not worth noting. "Surfing the Internet" should have it's own article too! Hehe. --Depakote 12:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef at best. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Femmina 15:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless definition. I knew what it meant from the title without even reading the article. ♠DanMS 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Timecop. Titoxd(?!?) 04:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Celestianpower háblame 16:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blop[edit]

This article just keeps on coming back, and seems to be a magnet for invention. On 2005-11-16 a blop was a "ball created from the tacky substance used on the back of adhesives", which was discussed and found wanting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blop/2005-11-16. On 2006-04-17 a blop was "a variation on chili-con-carne", which was deleted via {{prod}} on the grounds that there was no evidence to be found that this was true. Now, blopping is purportedly what bloggers do to one another.

Yes, some participants on one single web site use this protologism. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there is nothing whatsoever written on the subject of blopping which can be used as source material for an encyclopaedia article about it, partly because the word's only properly attested meaning is something completely different: spluttering. (See Krister LINDEN and Jussi PIITULAINEN (2004-05-31). "Discovering Synonyms and Other Related Words" (PDF). CompuTerm 2004 — 3rd International Workshop on Computational Terminology.).

This article is at the wrong title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), this meaning for this verb is a protologism, and there's apparently nothing to write about what blopping actually is. Uncle G 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Recury 19:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-illustrated nom. Also, "What bloggers do to one another" doesn't bear thinking about QuagmireDog 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Plutor. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bring It On Again[edit]

The page covers nothing about the movie, and the grammar/spelling is atrocious. It's not even long enough to be considered an article. 68.61.255.12 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • UE, D ComCat 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete In addition to the nonsense tag, maybe we need a 'crap' tag? Jasmol 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment- I second the call for a {{crap}} tag. Reyk 06:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please don't let Wikipedia turn into the IMDb message boards. Mrtea 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Send it straight to WikiHell, and salt the ground so that nothing will grow ther again. Sheesh! Reyk 05:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change my vote to keep Reyk 20:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Terrible article, but the movie does have an IMDb entry. ♠DanMS 05:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on the movie might pass muster, but this one just passes gas. It's written in quasi-gibberish, is virtually a substub, and isn't actually about the movie. Geogre 10:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Film may be real, but this article only states it's not a sequel. Contains no info on what it actually IS. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Plutor's rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 19:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The content is bad, not the subject. This belongs on cleanup or stubs, not here. (I've tried to improve it just a little.) -- Plutor 14:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 15:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as the article has now been rewritten into a proper Wikipedia-style film stub. Good work Plutor. There is plenty of precedent for film articles, and there are plenty out there that just need improvement. 23skidoo 16:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and note that the previour "Delete" votes above refer to an earlier version of the page. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as cleanup. --Elliskev 19:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. — Haeleth Talk 21:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, another malinformed nomination by ComCat.Gateman1997 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please gateman is right this is not a good nomination Yuckfoo 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was actually. The previous version that was nominated contained 2 sentences of non-information, which in my view were quite close to being speediable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially in its current state. Turnstep 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bring It On Again is the second best title in the Bring It On franchise of movies. —Brim 07:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 14:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 02:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BYC (disambiguation)[edit]

A disambig page with a bunch of redlinks that don't seem notable smacks of a directory more than something that's encyclopedic. WP:NOT a directory. --Locke Cole 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A disambiguation page is for things that actually have a Wikpedia page. 68.61.255.12 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the unanticipated yacht club articles. Disambiguation for this TLA is not necessary. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not disambiguate, so no content at all. Geogre 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing to disambiguate between yet. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: BTW, note the authors other contribs and his talk page; there may be more here to delete and/or revert. --Locke Cole 11:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all but one of the redlinks are yacht clubs, which aren't necessarily notable. Just about every place on the Earth next to a sea or a lake could have one. My own father is a member of a yacht club but I'm not considering writing an article about it. If the British Youth Council gets an article, it can be linked from the main BYC article. — JIP | Talk 17:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Rock and East Saarling Island[edit]

Unverifiable. Neither of these alleged islands appears in any other standard reference works, such as the CIA World Factbook. There are no mentions of East Saarling Island, an alleged insular area of the United States, on any US government websites. The "map" of East Saarling Island looks like something I could have created using Photoshop. Both articles were created at about the same time and the users appear to be the same (although one was created using an IP address and the other using a newly-created user id). --Russ Blau (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vandalism. Especially silly is the entry on Charter Rock stating that there is a sch**l for 18 children when the article on Pitcairn says that "in September 2003, the first baby was born on the islands in 17 years." Pilatus 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea about East Saarling, but Charter Rock is complete bollocks. 30 people? Pitcairn's population is 47, of whom all but 10 live in Adamstown. So the idea of 30 of them living on a rock elsewhere in Pitcairn that was only discovered in 1922 is complete drivel. As for "a ferry every two hours", since boat landings are only possible on Pitcairn twice a day, this is just the icing on the cake. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both as vandalism, and as a second choice delete both as hoaxes. --Metropolitan90 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Turnstep 03:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as above. Ingoolemo talk 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Hanson[edit]

Sad but WP:NOT a memorial. Delete --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tragic but not encyclopedic. Gamaliel 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with a list of 9/11 or aviation terrorism victims. Dbchip 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge a mention of her being the youngest victim into an appropriate article. Youngamerican 19:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cingular Wireless:FAQ[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Gamaliel 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Logue[edit]

Hoax associated with Scott Chuss (also on Afd). Though linked to Gigli, IMDB shows no cast member by this name. JLaTondre 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as hoax. Nice picture of Weird Al on there, though.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Nearly nonsense. Jasmol 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity, hoax, nonsense, whatever you want to call it.--Alhutch 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Country Tracks chart[edit]

I, the nominator, am nominating this page for DELETION for the following reasons:

  • There is absolutely no need to provide an exhaustive list of which artists have appeared on the this Country Tracks chart. If they've had a hit in the past, say, five years (which appears to be as far back as the author went), they've been on the chart. A link to country music or list of country music performers would suffice; but better yet, no link to tell the reader whom appeared on the chart is really needed.

IMO, this article has no value and should be deleted in short order. [[Briguy52748 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)]][reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Foreign language mispellings in English are not appropriate as redirects. -Splashtalk 04:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crase[edit]

'Crase' is a misspelling. It is the Portuguese word for 'Crasis'. Whoever wrote this entry must not have been aware of that. I have created a new stub for 'Crasis', which I have also defined more accurately and generally. I have also edited the old link to 'Crase' in the entry on the 'Grave Accent', which now directs to 'Crasis'. 193.136.232.3 12:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crasis (if this misspelling is common enough) or Delete. --Syrthiss 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is a common misspelling for English-speaking people. Only a Portuguese-speaking person would write 'crase' instead of 'crasis'. The word 'crase' does exist in English, but it has a completely different meaning. Regards.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no assertion of notability. brenneman(t)(c) 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel "The Captain" Johnstone[edit]

Bio of non-notable grade 12 student Dlyons493 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per my nom. Don't think Winner of Victory Christian Schools Highest Award is a valid claim to notability. Dlyons493 Talk 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under category A7 non-notable biography. Supposedly known as "Captain Charisma" because he is the top salesman in his store and the winner of the Victory Christian Schools highest award. Also, supposedly a budding professional wrestler. However, according to Google, it hasn't budded very much as a search for "Daniel Johnstone" wrestler comes up with 4 hits, none of which are relevant see [7]. Capitalistroadster 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted by me: The "claims of notability" were that he won a school award, works at an electronics store, and is an "amateur professional wrestler" (which is like being a little bit pregnant or having jumbo shrimp or the world's tallest midget). Geogre 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, and move to correct spelling. Not knowing which of the two titles is more appropriate, I'll move it to Positive political theory since the rewrite chooses that as the first words of the article and create a redirect at Explanatory.... Anyone will be able to move over the redirect without being an admin, if they think the other title is better -Splashtalk 04:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Explanitory Poltical Theory[edit]

Near-contentless and two words in the article title misspelled. I'm not sure a properly spelled version would grow any larger; I leave that to AfD's discretion. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Self-explanitory [sic]. Durova 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google hits to notable universities; this article needs to be expanded and moved to Explanatory Political Theory. Denni ☯ 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dic def. I'd be happy to reconsider if expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When we're at the level of mistitled articles, moving them to the proper spelling as well as waiting for a proper bit of content is the functional equivalent of deletion anyway. Again, no judgment on the (properly spelled) subject, but only on the content as it is and has been. Geogre 15:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it is a very short stub, but not exactly a dictionary definition. However, it should be moved to Positive Political Theory, which seems the most used term of the two. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized that I did not make my point well. That the subject of the article is notable seems agreed by most of the editors above (and a web search on Positive Political Theory shows that there are books and seminars on the topic). An article on this topic would be made of a definition and a (short or long) descripion of the subject. In this case, we only have a definition, which makes the article a stub. What I do not agree is that this is a dictionary definition. If this were true, we would be able to transwiki to wikctionary. Obviously, we can't: this is the definition of a subject (in this case, a theory), not the definition of a term (a dictionary definition). My reading (and intepretation) of the policies is that little content is not a ground of deletion, as long as a full article on the topic would be kept.
    Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent reasoning above. Turnstep 03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what Google hits I have found are references to books which discuss the theory, and to university curricula which cover it. There seem to be no free-standing articles on the net - this looks like a trip to the library. There is no doubt in my mind of the currency of the term, but it is far beyond my knowledge of political science to discuss intelligently. I stil think this article should be kept, but tagged for cleanup/expansion. Denni ☯ 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It took some time, but I finally found something that looks like an introduction to the topic [8]. I have added a sentences to the article from what's written there. I tagged the article as a stub, as it really need expansion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and correct the spelling ∾ Whatever the problems the original article may have had, the page has been significantly cleaned up by Paolo Liberatore and now appears to be an article with a future. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Paolo. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EXT (game)[edit]

NN, UE. Consists of nothing more than the synopsis of the game from the maker's webpage. Apparantly not even the proper name of the game. Descendall 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Listed website cannot be accessed by me atm (not showing up on DNS). However, if it is lifted directly from the website then that would be copyright vio. I'll try to look later and see if the dns problems have cleared up. --Syrthiss 13:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hasn't cleared up, so I tend to agree with Turnstep. Delete. --Syrthiss 04:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. Few game mods reach notability. This ain't one of them. Turnstep 03:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having no proven claim to notability, plus it's gamecruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facialz[edit]

Band vanity, as per WP:MUSIC. --Aurochs

  • Delete, lister --Aurochs
  • Delete, no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google for 'Facialz' seems to just give sex-site-related hits, Google for Sean Sodomite gives only one hit. No claim of notability on the page. Delete - Andre Engels 10:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Facialz fall under the sixth category as per WP:MUSIC: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city." That style being hardcore-punk and that scene being New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.143.226 (talk • contribs)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it could be BJAODNed for the comment re boring live performances :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that there's some things in life money can't buy, for everything else there's BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fake spanish[edit]

UE nonsense, delete. ComCat 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteo Descendall 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No es enciclopédico. --Metropolitan90 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV essay describing unsubstantiated phenomenon. Contravenes WP:NOT, WP:NOR. encephalon 02:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. By the way, ComCat what does UE mean in English. It would make it much easier for us considering your nominations for you to explain what they mean and why you are nominating something. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At a guess, probably "UnEncyclopedic". — Haeleth Talk
  • dont delete it is a good article with some good facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.131.89 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2005 November 16
  • Delete It's total nonsense. Cynicism addict 03:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete its the best article keep it now or ill be very very agrivated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.149.215 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2005 November 16 (comment also edited by 70.246.131.89 (talk · contribs) at 03:34, 2005 November 16)
  • Delete No place-o in Wiki-o-pedia, as above-o. I believe UE = Un-Encyclopedic. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, especially the talk page testimonials. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borrado... I mean delete. Unreferenced, Unencyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate I tried this when I was in Spanish, and my teacher only made fun of me. WAAAH!!!! DIE FAKE SPANISH!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • This is so obviously a Delete that I almost lose my faith in the deletion process. It is embarrassingly idiotic. Logophile 13:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete patent {{nonsense}}. Very weak redirect to Spanglish (after deletion of course). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Fake espanish Demi T/C 15:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:-O — Haeleth Talk 17:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and Delete funny --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill and maim. Snout | rummage 18:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • El BJAODN-O mas rapidamente, por favor. Youngamerican 18:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really Delete this fake article; as soon as possible. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then Delete it until the sun comes up.Gateman1997 22:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN for sure. —Cleared as filed. 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not quite BJAODN worthy. Turnstep 00:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ridiculous. This isn't Spanglish, which is where a person who speaks English and Spanish transposes terms and words, it's kids in Spanish class making up words in class. Non-encylopedic. Jtmichcock 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 14:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd vote delete as well, but it's already on BJAODN. Can we get rid of it now? --WAvegetarian 01:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedio deleto as patent nonsenso. It's already forever remembered in BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 05:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway pub (Lincolnshire)[edit]

non-notable local pub. This was tagged as a speedy delete, but IMO did not qualify. i have remove the advertising tone, but what is left is a sub-stub. Delete. DES (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it has reasonable prizes a friendly staff! If that's not a reason for notability, then delete. - Andre Engels 10:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn local business. MCB 22:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firefoxit[edit]

As much as I love the browser, Firefox extensions are not encyclopedic. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. --Aurochs
  • Delete. Some extremely popular extensions may warrant inclusion in Firefox or Firefox extension, but this only tells were to find it. Substub ad. - Mgm|(talk) 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Josef Weern[edit]

This article has problems: 0 hits on Google, 0 hits on a Norwegian search engine (even though he lived 100 years ago, you would expect to find something). Furthermore, the author has a dubious edit history, and he provided us with a number of non-working interwiki links to make the subject look notable. To summarize: Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 22:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Aurochs
  • Delete unless the author provides some source we can check. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax: there are no Norwegian baronetcies (nor, at the time in question, any Norwegian nobility). It is probably a safe assumption that everything by this contributor (User:TonyStilling) needs to be reverted or deleted. u p p l a n d 05:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, well spotted. Sam Vimes 13:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; his other contributions should be reviewed closely (Image:Heggedal.PNG is completely meaningless, Image:Heggedalmap.PNG is a fictive flag etc.). Cnyborg 20:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone go to all this trouble to create an article without merit? It doesn't make sense --85.166.60.203 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Complete hoax. No such person. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuquilism[edit]

I asked google and google laughed at me. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep, typoes as redirects are acceptable. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bus[edit]

Pointless redirect page. If we have this, why not other typoes? Why not all possible typoes for all pages? Khendon 19:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please take this to WP:RFD (but I'd vote keep anyway because we have plenty of redirects for typos, for example Abraham Lincon). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Malformed AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. In the future, please bring redirect deletion requests to WP:RFD. Hall Monitor 22:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (G3). Physchim62 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gigit[edit]

Curious rant about "gold digging" women and sexually transmitted diseases. -- RHaworth 17:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Full of PoV. But what is more, totally unreferenced, and a google search on "Gigit"+"women" does not reveal any relenvat hits, and a google search on "Gigit" reveals no relevant hits in the first few pages. If this term is in fact in common use, some reference for thatr fact must be cited. then the PoV (prhares like "the good kind" ) can be dealt with. DES (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or BJAODN, with an emphasis on the "B" and the "N") - obviously factually inaccurate, as there was no AIDS in the Old West - hard to read at all, but rather amusing. BD2412 T 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. --Aurochs
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense and original work. Jtmichcock 03:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Aurochs & Jtmichcock -- JLaTondre 03:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Nonsense. Attack. POV. No sources. Original “research” (if it’s worthy of that word). ♠DanMS 05:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Dunk of Dorset[edit]

nn person spam, and Google seems to think little of him Ian 13 20:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fiction. --Aurochs
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 21:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a real person as far as I can tell.--Alhutch 21:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government control[edit]

Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 21:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom and WP:NPOV. --Aurochs
  • Delete, we already have a better article on the "propaganda model". Gazpacho 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Nlu 09:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Geogre performed the deletion. WikiFanatic 03:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Baughman[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being the winner of a high school's "sexiest voice" contest would not be enough to warrant a Wikipedia article ... and the subject of this article was just the runner-up. --Metropolitan90 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an A7 non-notable biography. Runner up in a high school competition is not an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted by me: claim was that some dude had the sexiest voice in his high school. Geogre 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Accidents and incidents in aviation. — JIP | Talk 13:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter crashes[edit]

del events without articles are nonnotable. mikka (t) 04:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think what mikka means is that this is a List of famous helicopter crashes but none of the items on the list are linked to individual articles have WP articles written about them. Thus this is an all-redlink list (or would be if there were any wikilinks). —Wahoofive (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we could simply not have any article on notable crashes yet. I know of at least one. Delete Would be red-linked list. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect or just redirect per Wahoofive. - Mgm|(talk) 19:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mistitled, unlinked, random information (the one that killed Phil Graham and Stevie Ray Vaughn, maybe?). Geogre 15:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT what about the crash that killed Davey Allison? Or various ministers, state and government leaders? 132.205.45.110 20:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wahoofive. Turnstep 03:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It definately could be a larger article, the aviation article doesnt seem to cover helicopter crashes. Look at all the results when you search wikipedia for "helicopter crash": [10] --Astrokey44 13:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge valid title, considering the fact that it's probably what people would type in search box if they're looking for helicopter crashes.  Grue  18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Android16. -Splashtalk 17:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hells Flash[edit]

This article is describing an event that could be easily described in the article it is linked from. The Hell's flash attack was apparently only used once. The specifics of this event don't seem deserving of an article. Also, there is only one article linking to this page. If necessary, that article could be modified to include this summary.--Mihoshi 13:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Android 16 where it belongs. - Mgm|(talk) 20:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a full article about this could even be written on a DBZ Wiki, and this isn't DBZpedia. Merge this with Android 16 (which should probably be rewritten and merged into a list of DBZ characters, but this is neither here nor there). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Id museum[edit]

A web site. The article presents no evidence of notability. dbenbenn | talk 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP is not a web guide. This is a site about Id software, instead of, alas, a set of displays about archaic libido. Geogre 03:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. - splot 04:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, site shows boxes for id titles and gives their release year and has a forum. All the products by id Software are already adequately covered on Wikipedia in the company article and this site doesn't offer any real information. Run-of-the-mill fansite. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be covered in the company's article. Carina22 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre Dbchip 18:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Preaky 14:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 04:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Do It Tommarra Laura[edit]

Even if the copyvio issue is fixed, I don't think that this book merits it's own entry. As far as I can tell, the author has one book published, and the first person tone of the entry suggests that either the entry was written by the author himself or was cut-and-pasted from elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place to market your new book, regardless of how good it is. Jasmol 15:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; another book from PublishAmerica: see [11] or [12] for references about this publisher. This book here is on sale on Amazon [13]; The reviews on Amazon are all three in the same period (June-Sept 2004, nothing later; the book has been published on May 2004) and all three 100% positive. Regardless of the quality of the book, it is not notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon.com Sales Rank: None. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete DES (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imel juzzie[edit]

Delete. Unverifiable. Probable hoax. Edwardian 07:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is an A1 and A3 (linkspam) speedy, and so the deleters have things heavily on their side. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment: it is not an appropriate way to participate in AfD. I find Gateman1997 and Yuckfoo to have extremely weak positions having cited no reason at all for their recommendation. If either of them had put their article edits where their comments are, then things would clearly be different. Jtmichcock on the other hand at least has something to say. If Hipocrite wants a Deletion Review, s/he is free to request one himself. -Splashtalk 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobase[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Non-notable Deyyaz 04:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly qualifies for db-empty tag. Jasmol 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, substub, has one incoming link according to Google. Google also finds 42 pages in the same domain. Utterly non-notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malformed AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and please stop voting to "keep" because of the nomination. Note the incorrect nomination, if you wish, but do not suggest that Wikipedia keep an "article" that is merely a predicate nominative because of that nomination. The article could easily be a speedy for lack of content. Geogre 15:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that user:Hipocrite states on his talk page that he has not read the articles nominated by ComCat that he is voting "keep" on. They should not, therefore, be regarded as deliberations on the article but rather as some sort of point. Geogre 20:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have made no such statement regarding reading the article. If my votes are disregarded by the closer and that results in a different result than if my vote was regarded, I request that the closer bring this article to deletion review voluntarily. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand.Gateman1997 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand this please Yuckfoo 23:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above. They appear to have a number of participants and articles for a new venture. Jtmichcock 02:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jan David Reese[edit]

Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy delte, but IMO ther are at least arguable claims of notability here. Gets 42 google hits. Article looks like self-promotion. Indeed i ssupected a copyvio, but couldn't find an online source. Non-notable, not encyclopediac. Delete. DES (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure whether his company gets to notability standard (148 Google hits - I would vote no, but am open to contrary arguments), but if the company is doubtful, the owner/businessman is a clear no. - Andre Engels 10:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 00:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason "JTW" Wilkins[edit]

"Underground Cartoonist" with no claims of notability (and I can't find any buttressing evidence via google search). Likely a vanity page. A collaborator with the Anacostia Diaries blogger, whose article is also up for deletion. Anville 12:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason_Kottke[edit]

Previous VfD listed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination)

Not notable, vanity/advertisement. This guy is a blogger, made a font, is his "Lifetime Achievement Award" some kind of plea for his notability? Skrewler 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NN blogcruft, delete. ComCat 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. notable web celebrity. innovative designer and blog coder. first non-corporate professional blogger. the lifetime achievement award mentioned is for the Bloggies. go read the 1st nomination which failed by a landslide: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Kottke (1st nomination). --Quiddity 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:BIO. 1.8 million Google results for Jason Kottke [14] Covered in Newsweek see [15]. In WP:BIO, being published in a newspaper or journal is sufficient to get you a guernsey. Why is a person who gets 25,000 visits a day on a website not considered notable? We need a coverage in WP:WEB to cover bloggers similar to Webcomics. This nonsense of people winning lifetime achievement awards being nominated for deletion has got to end.Capitalistroadster 02:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable 65.34.232.136 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Useless Blog Garbage -- G0sp-hell 09:27, 15 November 2005
  • Keep most bloggers pages I would vote to delete, but Kottke is rather well known. I don't see this as a vanity page, and it is rather NPOV. I also don't see what has changed since the last vfd. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 04:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually vote delete for bloggers, but it only takes a little research to see that kottke.org is pretty notable. Jasmol 04:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Technorati calls him the 11th most popular blog. Article seems a little puffy, though. --William Pietri 06:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this article please it is about a very famous blogger erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 06:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and previous nomination. Someone who's covered by Newsweek can hardly be not-notable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless vanity page. I don't give a flying shit about this Jason Kottke person. --86.2.56.178 12:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons given in the first listing. No reason to relist. Angela. 12:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blogging + Search Engines, what's the use? SEO doesn't make something notable. --Depakote 12:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Remarkably notable. -- Plutor 14:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: important as a relatively early blogger and for his "micropatron"-sponsored professional career. --rbrwr± 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: very notable blogger. - squibix 15:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd seen many references to kottke.org before this, but assumed it was a Leo Kottke fan site. Oops. Anyway, it does look like this blog is notable enough to keep - but shouldn't the main article be about the site, not its creator? Perodicticus 16:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Jason has created several award-winning sites and is probably notable more as a person who has created these sites than via one site alone. He's won web awards, been written up in Newsweek and the New Yorker and was one of the early consistent bloggers. His article stands on WP:BIO merits alone. Jessamyn 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please research your nominations before making them.Gateman1997 22:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 14:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. Stop trolling. Rhobite 03:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Go back under your bridge. —RaD Man (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Quiddity, echo Gateman1997s comment. Radman and Rhobite, please try and be more civil, eh? Take a look at WP:COOL, calm down, remember that even if someone is a troll, feeding them doesn't solve the problem. Blackcap (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the inclusion criteria established at WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 [[User talk:DS1953|<sup>talk</sup>]] 02:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Lasica[edit]

Not notable, does every blogger need their own wiki article? Skrewler 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Delete as NN. ComCat 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. HAHAHAHA PLEASE stop making useless not notable non-encyclopediac articales on wikipedia. remember what wikipedia is not okay? 65.34.232.136 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 03:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Will someone stop nominating notable people as per WP:BIO. Had book published by Reed Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation published earlier this year which was reviewed by notable publications. Eight Google News references see [16] and 861,000 Google references. [17]. WP:WEB needs its own bloggers section. Capitalistroadster 03:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stong. An author listed on amazon. A google search gets 944,000 hits. -- 24.68.132.132 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though I'm typically quick to hit the delete button on bloggers, this one is notable enough. Jasmol 04:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Durova 05:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This particular person is not known as a blogger, so Skrewler's question should be answered with "no, bloggers are not very notable." However, this particular person is a frequent commentator and a flavor of the year on DRM issues. He has been the flavor for long enough, too, that I think he's a stable presence. Geogre 10:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster and the anon commenting after he did. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless. Just another shitty blogger who thinks they are more important than anyone else. This is clearly not the case, unless we are going by the colour of their shit. --86.2.56.178 12:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known author (>100,000 Google hits for darknet+Lasica), and founder of Ourmedia which already has an Alexa rank of 19,000 despite launching only 8 months ago. (disclaimer: I'm probably biased since I'm on the advisory board of Ourmedia). Angela. 12:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Perhaps worth noting on a page about "authors with blogs", but currently isn't notable enough for an article of her own. --Depakote 12:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable author, grey literature researcher. Are the people who are putting up these AFDs even reading who the people are, or just searching for the word 'blog' in the articles. Jessamyn 17:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that is exactly what is going on. Check out the nominator's user page. Turnstep 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable author who passes WP:BIO. Gateman1997 22:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable author, blogging irrelevant. Turnstep 02:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 14:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and establish blogger inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB to prevent these type of systematic nominations from happening in the future. Hall Monitor 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Fulvimari[edit]

Vanity article by anon user - EurekaLott 19:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio and blanked by author. --GraemeL (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Hill[edit]

Delete. Test, non-notable biography. Edwardian 07:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I am firmly discounting Hipocrite's comment again, and am pleased to see a similar one by another editor withdrawn. There are decent, if minimal, arguments made for retaining the content so there's no consensus to delete. Someone does need to fix the article and its title, though. -Splashtalk 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jiminy Lummox/Bass Masters[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a poorly written article about an episode of a television series. --Metropolitan90 07:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90 — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep malformed afd Dlyons493 Talk 08:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So fix it. Please vote based on the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split episodes and keep. Ren & Stimpy episodes are notable even if they are in a crummy format. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The content isn't worth preserving in these particular cases. Secondly, it's a double episode in a single article, so arguments about the show are somewhat beside the point. This article is unusable to researchers and is at an unsearchable title. Geogre 10:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malformed AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please vote on the article, not the nominator or do not vote. Protesting someone's "abuse of AFD" by abusing AFD is, in fact, similar grounds for RfC. Let's not do that, folks. Geogre 15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Dottore So 15:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we have simpsons and south park episodes too Yuckfoo 23:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Also registering my agreement with Geogre and Mgm in re: the fact that people should vote on AfD based on the contents of the article alone, and whether that article meets the criteria for deletion. Voting on the merits of the nominator is bogus, and pretty much a textbook example of argumentum ad hominem. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Yuckfoo. Kappa 12:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Owen (footballer)[edit]

Hoax - no such footballer exists - see Google [18]. Author (129.67.63.12) has also added false information to Arsenal F.C. in order to justify this page's existence. Qwghlm 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable as per Google. Interestingly, this page on England footballers says there was an English representative called John Owen born in 1848 but I have been unable to find anymore about him see [19]. He is listed right at the bottom of the birthdays list. However, if there were to be an article on John Owen (footballer), the 1848 John Owen should be the person covered. Capitalistroadster 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Recreate when more can be found about the 1848 bloke. Youngamerican 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Punkmorten 21:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the info here in the entry is bull. As per Youngamerican if a future recreation is seen as desirable. Keresaspa 15:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly as per Capitalistroadster, non-verifiable. Hall Monitor 22:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was a tragic delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lister (schoolboy)[edit]

This young man's tragic death has gotten news coverage in the UK. He was, however, only a student, however sad his death. He was listed at Recent Deaths, where his listing was the subject of some argument. On the basis of the precedent of Ashley Burns, he has remained listed there, but now that a stub exists, I thought it should be brought. I am ambivalent about the subject personally, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but keep on the recent deaths page, maybe for a temporary period of time? Starfighter Pilot 16:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Delete. Unfortunately, WP:NOT a memorial page. Non-notable.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:RasputinAXP. DES (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:RasputinAXP. Unfortunately, deaths on school trips are not a new thing, so this is unlikely to be a major catalyst. The JPS 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This incident is getting alot of buzz in the UK relating to school field trips. At a future time, however, this might need to be merged into something else. Youngamerican 19:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, Wikipedia is not a memorial.--Kalsermar 19:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the case of Ashley Burns, her death was commented in many sources and challenged the development of cheerleading, or at the very least highlighted its evolution into an athletic and dangerous sport. While similarly the link has been drawn to the risk of school trips, I think this is just journalist filler when reporting a tragedy. I recall a report in Australia earlier this year of a girl being killed by a falling tree while on a school camp. Life is risky, some people die prematurely, including on school trips and it is very sad.--A Y Arktos 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Accidents and incompetence happen when potholing, as do deaths on school trips. Nothing special to see here. Pilatus 20:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly Delete. Gateman1997 20:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pilatus. David | Talk 21:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the fluff news agencies write when they need to put in sentimental pablum in for people who don't understand real news. Williamb 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting quite some press but too recent to say if it ends up changing laws and regulations. Delete now, but keep the option of recreation open if it turns out to spark changes. - Mgm|(talk) 22:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please. While I don't live in the UK I do live far enough into the country to recognize the important issues his death raises. Maybe in a few years one can sadly delete this, however I don't feel the stub is sufficiently partisan to merit deletion on those grounds, while again, I do recognize it is worth paying attention to these important issues.Jplatt39 00:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is it possible to rewrite this entry in a tone that is less memorial and more in line with the tone of the Ashley Burns article? I would also advocate for a different source being added such as this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4438520, which discusses the death in the context of the larger issue of safety on school trips. Ladydayelle
    • Comment** Then why not include his name and what happened in an article about safety on school trips. Although I must say the whole thing sounds sort of duhish to me. I myself think that the Ashley Burns article too was just fluff reporting..but.. Williamb 07:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. We have no article on Bunmi Shagaya (see [20]) who was possibly more significant. Nor is there an article on the boys who died while canoeing in Lyme Bay in 1992 which prompted a significant legislative tightening on school activities by their local MP David Jamieson in the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995 [21]. David | Talk 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tragic, but not encyclopedic. Gamaliel
  • Delete as per Pilatus. Sliggy 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Echoing some comments above, many accident/malpractice deaths are reported on the news, and yes, this one has featured quite widely in the UK. However, unless his death triggers some new laws, I'm going to say delete. - Hahnchen 00:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete chaz171 there are thousands of non-encyclopedic articles on this site. take for instance all of the rash of recently executed convicted murderers. Losers on American Idol have their own pages. Perhaps there needs to be a pop culture encyclopedia to supplement the "wealth of world knowledge" site.
  • delete Can we have an article about dangers, accidents and deaths on UK school field trips; which can highlight the issues and name the indiviudals who have passed away in the tragic way. Y control 09:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that albeit it is a tragedy, an encyclopedia doesn't have place for such commonday occurrences.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.42.254 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC-5)
  • DELETE: If every tragic death is archived, this site will need a search engine for every day's entry. Thousands of kids die every day in tragic circumstances - perhaps there should be a special folder for such - but please not in the same list as the great and famous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.5.186.49 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC-5)
  • Delete or Merge into an future article on pupil deaths in British academic institutions as per several other posters. My prayers are with the family. Zerbey 17:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the information into a relevant article. Perhaps on the dangers of caves? Drowning and caves? I hate to see it deleted, so if the info can fit anywhere, it should be kept. --DanielCD 19:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nn. Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 22:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am sorry about the tragedy. Nevertheless, it's simply not notable in a encyclopedic way. Vonspringer 21:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Important issue, yes, but not one that should be editorialized or personalized within an encyclopaedia. Larry 1624 16:55 EST, 19 November 2005
  • Keep: On another tack, why is his death any less important than a bunch of entries for murderers who happen to have been executed by lethal injection? They got what they deserved, did Joseph Lister? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.14.53.15 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC-5)
  • Delete sadly, accidental deaths happen every single day - this one isn't encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't like voting against it, knowing I have a tendency for defending "non-notable" articles myself, but this is one that's too recent, too memorialistic, and too NN unfortunately Sherurcij 07:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - With a future article on the Manchester Hole caveSoldan 16:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. BD2412 T 14:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jurokk[edit]

Non-notable Star Wars article. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 19:47, 15 November 2005 (CDT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, subject to review in a few months. - DS 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Borden[edit]

I don't see the value in this article. There is no information about her and apart from the tragic events of the murder it is NN. --Kalsermar 19:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:NOT a memorial. --Aurochs
  • Delete per [22].PJM 21:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, considering that she is still a minor, and is currently considered a "victim" in the murder/kidnapping. --TangentIdea 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object, for the moment. I have no idea what "NN" means. Until she is clearly identified as a victim, and until David G. Ludwig gets his article -- where she will be FULLY IDENTIFIED -- keep it, and let it grow. --FourthAve 22:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this story did generate national coverage--Fallout boy 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If she still has notability in a year, it can be recreated. For now, it should go. Dottore So 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, let's see what gets added as the story progresses. Perhaps she'll turn out similar to Rachelle Waterman, perhaps not. Let's let the article stay, it's not hurting anything by existing. If its still NN in a few months, then we can delete it.--Azathar 06:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. If we have something on this case, it should be at the name of her parents or at that of her boyfriend's (the suspected murderer), not at hers. - Andre Engels 09:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with the "keep and review" later camp. This may well be something significant or it may be nothing.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and likely to become more so. Rast 16:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; her story's been all over the news. She gets about 2500 hits on Google News as of right now. Decide on any redirects later, after the case has developed more; I favor keeping her article separate from David Ludwig's. I'll certainly be watching the case for future information; this article and David J. Ludwig are probably going to expand significantly over time.--Idont Havaname 04:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I have a feeling more might come out of this, judging by what I've come across. --Cooleyez229 08:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because, I don't really give a shit about it, but keep it anyway. Isn't This Where...We Came In? 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Case has made an impact in many viewers (especially in America), and well - there's no basis for the deletion, to be quite frank. I know many people don't believe in the media's decisioning to influence America and etc., but it definitely is a noteable subject. --Mrmiscellanious 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • If this article gets deleted, I would like to request that the vote-for-deletion on Melody Pomeroy get reopened. At least Kara Borden became nationally famous. 71.65.54.92 20:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the voters here don't seem to understand why this was listed for deletion. The current notablility of the subject is not being argued. The future notability is. I quite doubt that this case will have any lasting impact on anything, or that anybody will remember or care about it in four months. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • That may be the case, but right now, it is somewhat notable. If no one cares in 4 months, then put it back up on AfD.--Azathar 06:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it has been SIX days and there is no consensus to delete. Not including comments and sockpuppets, There are 8 votes to KEEP, 4 votes to DELETE, 1 Vote to DELETE/REDIRECT, and 1 OBJECTION. Adding in the 7 sockpuppet votes, there would be 15 votes to KEEP, and still only 4(5) votes to DELETE. 8-4 (or 15-4) do not make a consensus to delete, and this page should be KEPT, and the AfD notice removed. I have to go and do something at the moment, and only have a few minutes to write this, but, if it's not done sometime soon, I'll review the AfD policy and follow the instructions to remove it myself.--Azathar 04:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count 8 keeps and 6 deletes (57%-43%) so I guess there is no consensus and it should be kept. I disagree but such is the result of the process. Hopefully the article will someday be a true biograpical article but I don't see how. So, does a moderator close the debate and remove the AfD notice after verifying the vote and eligibilities to vote or does it fall to the nominator (me)? It was my first nomination and I'm still not sure about the procedure in full.--Kalsermar 16:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet votes[edit]

  • KEEP! News is news.. she is now HISTORY. - 206.132.98.254 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Erika[reply]
  • Keep: It represents the facts in the case.
  • Keep Why not, its a forum for other kids to come and see what people think of her, whether she is victim or not, besides, it will only grow from here on out for awhile, and theres nothing objectionable that I can see. GC
As to why not, see item #5: [23] PJM 02:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, There is nothing objectionable about it. Even though she is a minor, her name has already made it into the news. This article has not exposed anything new that would cause further harm, but has instead stuck to a news-based perspective. This article is based on the publicly known facts of the case and has refrained from making judgements on the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.116.125 (talk • contribs)
    • The AfD isn't about objectionability so much as relevance. Kara Borden is not deemed relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time, and probably will never meet that standard (what seperates her from the thousands of other children of murdered people who don't happen to have Wikipedia articles?) --Aurochs
  • Keep; Her name is all over the place anyway. We don't know that she is a victim yet, and if she is, as unfortunate as this may be, her name will continue to be all over the news until this nightmare is over. Whoever doesn't like it doesn't have to read it. Doesn't look like these kids were looking for privacy if they have blogs all over the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.12 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP: you better keep it, this is what wiki is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.218.127 (talk • contribs)

KEEP - Since her actions were newsworthy, they are also wikiworthy.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, no assertion of notability. --Phroziac(talk) 03:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevlin Henney[edit]

Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being in a user group, even as an active member does not establish notoriety. If this is the limit of his accomplishments, delete. --Lucent 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barring some greater accomplishment, being an expert or having expertise is not sufficient. We don't allow Random J. Professor, and each is, by nature, an expert. Geogre 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The article has been recreated, with more documentation. However, the additional material is merely more detail about the gentleman's publications. I still see no more effect on the world than the usual professor, so no change of vote by me. Geogre 14:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 04:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kralnoricism[edit]

Neologism, not notable, etc. gren グレン 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WoW has its own Wiki. - AdelaMae 22:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: term not used widely in game (as far as I have seen) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
don't delete World oof Warcraft is a widely played gamee and many of the warlocks who play it look to the great Kralnor for guidance. (unsigned vote by 65.34.16.150)
Although I know of this term and have seen it used, it certainly isn't up to the standard of Leeroy Jenkins, unfortunately that doesn't have an article. I must say Delete, Derktar 00:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Labtech[edit]

Delete advertisement. Edwardian 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advert, no evidence that they are any different from other peripherals retailer/manufacturers. Article looks like a cut and paste job from somewhere else, and they haven't even got the name of the company right in the title - it's 'Labtec'. Average Earthman 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Labtec, and clean it up. Labtec made (and still makes) a lot of peripherals. don't have a heart attack that I voted keep on something, please  RasputinAXP  T C 18:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I absolutely agree that Labtec could have an article on it, but I disagree with holding onto a null counter waiting for that day. What's there now is worse than amateurish. Again, making it a requested article is ok, but there's nothing here to save. Geogre 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio [24] Turnstep 03:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Labtec where I have just created a stub for this article. Agree with Geogre above, and Turnstep is right in saying this is a copyvio, but I feel Labtec are a sufficiently notable brand to merit an article. UkPaolo 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No copyvio can ever be sufficiently notable to merit an article. This copyvio/advert was already deleted btw. Moriori 19:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep 11 delete/ 3 redirect - JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lady Caroline Faber[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirect malformed afd Dlyons493 Talk 08:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a valid AFD vote, discounted by closing admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a court of law. In the justice system, a clearly guilty person might get off on a technicality because the proper procedures have not been followed. In Wikipedia, a bad article does not escape deletion just because the AfD nomination was "malformed", whatever that means. My vote is delete. Reyk 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, family tree entry (said like this to avoid that 'g'-word I constantly misspell) - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Genealogy. No claims of accomplishments (except birth, marriage, and fecundity). Geogre 10:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Genealogy. -EnSamulili 11:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just found this article yesterday and added some content. Since it is not long and is unlikely for expansion, perhaps it should be added to a "Marriage and descedants" section on the article about her father? Her two siblings have their own articles. See: Maurice Macmillan and Lady Catherine Macmillan User:Dimadick
  • Changed my mind. Redirect now Dimadick merged it in an appropriate place at Harold Macmillan. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect; a person with no particular accomplishments.PaddyBriggs 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Genealogy. Carina22 12:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malformed AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No WP:POINT, please. Geogre 15:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, there is. If you prevent deliberation of an article along the lines of the deletion guideline, you are preventing the functioning of the AfD process, which makes your actions disruptive. If you are considering the article and believe that it should be kept, that's fine. If you are just trying to war with another editor, that is wrong. Geogre 20:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a valid AFD vote, discounted by closing admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mgm faling that Delete --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, she fails WP:BIO, however this is also a malinformed AFD.Gateman1997 22:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 14:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the numerous reasons provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Napoleon Charles Bonaparte and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise-Eugénie Bonaparte, both of which were deleted by consensus. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cat haters[edit]

The article itself mentions that several of the entries are based purely on popular hearsay. Non-comprehensive, and non-encylopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into ailurophobiacs, then delete. Youngamerican 19:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic. --Aurochs
  • Delete, hardly verifiable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unmaintainable list. Of at best dubious encyclopedic value. No sources, and hard to verify. if it inclkuded only notable people with verifable hatrad or fear of cats, adn cited sources, might be reasoanble, but even then, what is the point? DES (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. PJM 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dubious and unneeded. Punkmorten 21:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Worthy of preserving, but not worthy of an article. -Silence 22:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I advice you to put it somewhere on your user page. Punkmorten 22:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My user page is too crowded already. Come on, how could anyone not be amused by "Rockwell Sayre, a Chicago banker in the early 1920's, started a campaign to rid the entire world of cats by the year 1925. He offered financial rewards to cat killers."? -Silence 23:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do know about Subpages, right? - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and just plain silly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and unverifiable. Jtmichcock 03:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of miserable gits Delete. I actually quite enjoyed the article, but it's unverifiable and doesn't belong in encyclopaedic namespace. --Last Malthusian 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless, in the interests of NPOV, somone produces a verified (and comprehensive) list of Cats Who Hate People" --SockpuppetSamuelson 15:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely such a list would be unmaintainably large. -Silence 18:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 01:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. pointless and unverifiable. UkPaolo 14:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: pointless, inherently POV listcruft. MCB 22:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Animacruft. --Nintendude 03:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic Businesspersons, List of Catholic Adventurers, List of Catholic Athletes[edit]

This is a collective nomination for three "List of Catholics". Inclusion criteria are overly broad, and the faith of none of those people had an incfuence on their chosen profession. Pilatus 14:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not categorize members of the lists as Catholic unless they are prominent as followers of Catholicism. Are we going to categorize the entire cricket side of Bangladesh as Muslims, just because Bangladesh is a Muslim country? Pilatus 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreted as delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize all members of these lists appropriately, then delete the lists, as with all lists linking profession to religion. See AFDs for List of Jewish publishers, bankers, and criminals. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a point in having a Category:Catholic authors, as there are many writers whose work is influenced by their faith. But why would one wish to categorize athletes of businessmen as adherents of $FAITH? Pilatus 15:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me clarify what I meant. For example, if it is verified that Pat Croce is catholic, add him to Category:Roman Catholics so this information is not lost. If there is already an appropriate subcategory, move him further down to it. I did not mean create new subcategories based on the list titles above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as keep. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tribalism. Perodicticus 15:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. DES (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pilatus --TimPope 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. listcruft --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the lists that link occupation and religion, with the possible exception of politicians. Youngamerican 19:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize people in Category:Roman Catholics and delete. Please note the current lists are miscapitalized. Their occupation is in no way related to their faith. Possible exceptions for politicians, authors and journalists come to mind. - Mgm|(talk) 20:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have only just started weeding the "Lists of $PROFESSIONALS following $RELIGION". Pilatus 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as keep. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Nandesuka 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or else convert to categories. — RJH 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete, per Freak. Lists of (religion) (profession) are not encyclopedic, save when the faith has something to do with the profession. (List of priests/rabbi/whatever-term-for-clergy would be encyclopedic, as would a list of writers whose work is influence by their faith.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 03:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination 72.144.139.115 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reason as in list of Catholic composers/artists Antidote 23:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Edwardian 22:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish criminals[edit]

No reason to have this, seems like it'd only be used as anti-semetic fodder. Descendall 12:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Apparently I have some distant cousin in the Purple Gang, I'd like to keep my family in the limelight :-). But seriously, "notable criminals" are, well... notable. Obvious, limit it to those people whose noteriety is connected to their criminality: gangsters, jewel thiefs, etc. If someone Jewish is notable for something else, and they happened to have shoplifted, drove drunk, committed assault, or whatever, exclude that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all in List of Jews and start serious cutting. That said, having a list of Jewish criminals makes no sense. Whether someone is a criminal is unrelated to their religion, sorting by nationality is much more useful. A list like this encourages anti-semitic feelings even if it wasn't intented. Just as a list of Muslim terrorists would inadvertedly encourage hate towards Islam. If it was deleted I wouldn't shed a tear either. - Mgm|(talk) 12:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on! I can hardly imagine how an "article" like this could be written in good faith. Delete for the same well-trodden arguments given for the list of publishers today and bankers yesterday. Anville 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm waiting for List of Jews who have molested White Christian children and then killed them. Descendall 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm holding out for List of Jewish cooks who have published recipies via Jewish publishers for cooking Christian babies. Anville 17:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with [related AfDs]. Dottore So 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it looks as though there are one or two people who keep adding these "lists" all the time, hopefully if we keep deleting them they'll get bored and stop. XYaAsehShalomX 13:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete untenable list, sets a precedent for prejudiced coverage of Judaism. --anetode╔╝ 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. BD2412 T 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorize members of the list to Category:Criminals and Category:Jewish [Foobarians] according to nationality, then delete the list, so no information is actually lost. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete, per Freak. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 23skidoo 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the two things are unrelated --TimPope 18:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nandesuka 19:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unrelated List of (random religion or ethnic group) (random profession). Durova 23:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why on earth do we need to make lists of people by race/religion/ethnicity? Of what possible use is such a list is this? Is anyone ever going to type “List of Jewish criminals” into the search box? ♠DanMS 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A magnet for vandalism and anti-semitism, and not helpful at all. Jtmichcock 02:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This kind of stuff makes me embarassed to be a strong list supporter. Turnstep 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unbelievable. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review. There's no real need for a list soley comprising of Jewish criminals. However, some information on the extent of jewish criminality may be useful in order to understand the nature and reasons behind anti-semitism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.10 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 November 2005
  • Delete because Jews live in many countries with different laws so the list is meaningless. Arniep 12:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Astrokey44 13:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I don't have an issue with lists of accomplished individuals belonging to particular faiths. But this particular association is bordering on anti-semitic bigotry. — RJH 16:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For reason mentioned above me. If there is a list of Christian criminals or Italian criminals delete those too. It's just too explosive.--T. Anthony 17:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a Jew is not an important property of a criminal.  Grue  18:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews, when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep: as long as Category:LGBT_criminals is kept, keep. If it's deleted, delete this too. I see no difference whatsoever between the two. If anything, this one's more worthy of keeping since a list is better than a category for contentious subjects. -Silence 23:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was one of the rare times I voted to delete on a "List of XYZ religious/ethnic group" deal. I have no anti-list views, I'm just being consistent on what I feel is overly contentious NPOV flamefest potential stuff. I'll vote for deleting Category:LGBT criminals as well if I can find where you do that. As for the religion relating to the crime that can happen. However months ago I created a List of convicted or indicted religious leaders for just that sort of thing. I think I had few Jewish people, but there might be one or two. (And now that I've drawn attention to it it might get placed on delete. However some of the others and I did verify most everything in it and I put some clear rules in from the get go)--T. Anthony 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I'm opposed to all these types of lists + I can't find a comparable list for other religions + this really makes the internet suck more. --JJay 04:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the "Gay criminals" AfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_18#.5B.5B:Category:LGBT_criminals.5D.5D. It has almost as much support for "keep" as this one has for "delete". Obviously homosexuality and criminality have much more of a connection than Jewishness and criminality. -Silence 13:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Silence, your logic escapes me. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever, you argue strongly for linking the vote to such articles as List of films that have been considered the worst ever. You state : Effectively, this vote is a vote on whether or not to delete the entire series of "X that have been considered the worst ever", since there's absolutely no significant difference I can see. I felt the statement was sophistic because VfD is not the supreme court and its results do not create legally binding precedent. Nevertheless, there you felt that a delete vote would set a dangerous precedent for articles you clearly considered valid. Here you vote keep, even though you are opposed to the Gay criminal list. If we can’t remove the rubbish from our house all at once, must it all remain? I say delete the entire series of X criminals, gay, straight, Jewish or otherwise. I invite you to join me in setting a precedent. Let’s start getting the trash to the curb. --JJay 17:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not vote "keep," I voted "conditional keep if the 'LGBT criminals' category is deleted, conditional delete if the 'LGBT criminals' category is deleted". I would have put all that in bold, but I didn't want to annoy anyone with overusing the bolding, and since the current consensus when I voted in LGBT was for "keep", "conditional keep" was my effective vote at the time; if the consensus for the LGBT criminals category changes to "delete", my effective vote here will then be "conditional delete". I voted "strong delete" on that list, incidentally, rather than "conditional delete", because unlike this vote, that one is just getting started, and there is plenty of time to debate and for people to change their minds and for a consensus to arise for either side. For this list, however, the consensus is very firmly already established as "delete", and there's limited time left for this category to exist; thus voting "conditional delete" would be meaningless, since there's almost no chance that the "condition" I require wouldn't be satisfied. My vote is conditional here because the "LGBT criminals" vote is much less decided (though leaning "keep").
  • I never implied that there was anything "legally binding" requiring us to vote remotely consistently (or, indeed, not to just flip a coin to decide how we vote); legality implies "must", whereas my arguments deal with "should", with the most rational course of action, the one that will benefit the most people and thus benefit Wikipedia most. Wikipedia not being the supreme court is irrelevant; "precedent" (like "delete this for the same reason that X was deleted") is still a very valid concept that is commonly used to justify VfDs and votes throughout Wikipedia. If one article is deleted for a certain reason, and the exact same reason applies equally well to another article, then either the other article should be deleted as well, or the first article's deletion should be overturned. If "list/category of Jewish criminals" is a bad list solely because it implies a connection between two types of people where no connection can be shown to exist, then a "list/category of LGBT criminals" should also be deleted unless either list/category, or both lists/categories, can be shown to have a valid connection between the two groups worthy of a list/category. Unless there's something especially offensive about Jewish criminals that makes it bad to have a list for them and OK to have a list for other minority ethnic or sexual groups, this list should be handled just like all other lists of the exact same nature, regardless of the specific groups being discussed. Likewise, if "list of songs that have been considered the worst ever" is bad because it is POVed, or because it is unmaintainable, or because it's standards aren't strict or organized enough, or for any number of other reasons, and those exact same reasons apply to "list of movies that have been considered the worst ever", then unless someone can somehow show that it's OK to have such a list for movies but not for songs (which no one has even attempted to do thus far, probably because such an argument would be ridiculous), either both lists should be deleted, or neither. And then we get a chain reaction: if "list of movies that have been considered the worst ever" should be deleted, so should "list of movies that have been considered the greatest ever" unless it can somehow be shown that having a "worst movies" page is completely unacceptable, while having a "best movies" page is just fine; and if "list of movies that have been considered the greatest ever" is unacceptable, then surely the same applies to "list of computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever" unless some difference can be shown that would make "best movies" not OK and "best games" OK. Again, noone's succeeded in establishing a single significant (in terms of deletion/not deletion) difference between any of these four articles, thus a VfD for one of them is highly significant to all four pages. Arbitrarily deleting random articles does a disservice to Wikipedia, to its editors, and to its readers, by causing confusion and waste of resources and time through unnecessary inconsistency not merely in article style or format (which I tend to be OK with), but in our actual inclusion standards. Feel free to vote "delete" for Jewish criminals and "keep" for LGBT criminals (or vice versa) if you want to, but it would be highly advisable to eat least provide a possible reason to do so, as no one has done so yet, just as no one has yet provided a reason to delete "list of songs that have been called the worst by noteworthy souces" and not "list of movies that have been called the worst by noteworthy sources". Come on, give me some specific counter-arguments if you disagree with me! Don't just fight for inconsistency and arbitrary, chaotic, random voting for the hell of it. -Silence 20:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is certainly valid to point out that Category:LGBT_criminals exists and that you do not believe that List of Jewish criminals should be deleted as long as the former remains. Whether the exact same reason applies to both is perhaps subjective- VfD is a good way of clarifying the issue. I have indicated that I would vote to delete both.
I should also like to indicate that I can not find the following lists/categories:
If these lists/categories exist under other names I apologize. Perhaps out of fairness you feel they should be created if this is kept. I would oppose their creation. I would further oppose creation of a List of law-abiding Jews, which in some sense could be viewed as a best of flip-side to a List of Jewish criminals.
This is not the place to debate the worst of song list, versus a worst of film list. I would vote to delete one and keep the other because of significant perceived differences in terms of list definition, context, source reliability & notability, etc. I would be happy to discuss these points at greater length at a later date on your user page. I do, though, accept the community’s logic or illogic as expressed through VfD (and regret my own all too frequent faults of reasoning). --JJay 21:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. There is no particular support for the category suggestion, but someone can do that freely if they want to (you might need to request a temp undel). Whichever way I count things, there's more than two-thirds to delete, but I observe keep editors without any reason and another with paranoia. -Splashtalk 04:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish publishers[edit]

Finishing incomplete nomination Nandesuka 11:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One of the many spawnlings of listmania. There's a reason wikipedia does not have list of Muslim publishers, list of Atheist publishers, list of Buddhist publishers
  • Keep Yet another anonymous person seeking the deletion of a list of Jews. Why do people keep doing this? The arguments for keeping these lists have been well rehearsed in previous requests for deletion, and have always been accepted.
    RachelBrown 22:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why do people continously make these ridiculously specifi lists when no other lists of the like are made? EscapeArtistsNeverDie 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't feed the conspiracy theorists. Nandesuka 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can this be used for anything but anti-Semitic purposes? --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sets bad precedent. Religion and profession are rarely related. Serves no useful purpose. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments given above and at the List of Jewish bankers AfD. Anville 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial Carina22 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. BD2412 T 14:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In last few months were deleted Lists of Jewish scientists, engineers and so on. An attempts were made to delete Lists of Jewish Fellows of Royal Society, historians and List of Jews. There are a lot of such Lists for various nationalities in Wikipedia.
    • Mr. BD2412! Can you give us, as highly qualified attorney, a legal advice:
    • Can Wikipedia Organisation indorse all this Delitions, if apparently the only reason for them is that Jews are ethnic,relious group and not nationality?
    • LazarKr 07:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize members of the list to Category:Publishers and Category:Jewish [Foobarians] according to nationality, then delete the list, so no information is actually lost. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify and delete, per Freak. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more unnecessary listcruft (as in who gives a damn what religion these guys are?). I would have voted to keep if this had been an actual list of publishing houses that produce books in the language or about exclusively Jewish topics, but this list ain't it. 23skidoo 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lists of Jews have been deleted, not kept. See List of Jewish members of the French Academy of Sciences, List of Jewish members of the Russian Academy of Sciences... howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with list of deleted lists that tied various Jews to their occupations. Youngamerican 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete per Freakofnurture. — Haeleth Talk 21:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no more encyclopedic than List of Methodist dentists. Durova 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — if the contents are valid. — RJH 01:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why on earth do we need to make lists of people by race/religion/ethnicity? Of what possible use is such a list is this? Is anyone ever going to type “List of Jewish publishers” into the search box? ♠DanMS 01:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some people, examples of accomplished individuals belonging to their shared faith is a significant source of pride and role models. This is just PC-ness run amuck. This type of information is going to be maintained somewhere, so why not do it here and make a proper, balanced, nPoV job of it? — RJH
      • This is not my reason for why I create religion involved lists. Otherwise I wouldn't hace created lists for religions where I have never even met anyone of the given faith. Religion is interesting to me as are religious people. I don't like reading in column form and by creating lists people can categorize them later. That said this might be too specific so I'm just not voting in this case.--T. Anthony 17:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MacGyverMagic. Turnstep 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LazarKr 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do we really want to adopt the French position of refusing to keep statistics by ethnicity? Look where it's got them. - Londoneye 09:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the foregoing. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jews can regard themselves as a nation so, if French publishers, American publishers etc. are allowed this should be also. Arniep 12:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I abhor the attitude that Jews aren't allowed the same self-identity as anyone else. - Poetlister 12:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Astrokey44 13:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there were lists of this detail for other "ethnicities," I'd consider keeping --- but I sense some underlying intentions with these lists. Antidote 17:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course there's an underlying intention in my case - to record the contributions of the Jewish people to civilisation. I'm not sure about the list of Jewish criminals, and maybe that should go. Otherwise, I'm just bewildered by the general hostility to these lists. I wonder about the underlying intention of this hostility, and how many well-meaning people are being taken in by it. - RachelBrown 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that you are willing to delete the list of criminals shows a bias for only keeping lists that show people in a good light, no? The point is that there are way too many of these lists, and for no reason, since 95% of the people listed in them can be easily found in other lists and categories. 65.9.143.76 23:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • -You've missed my point. Well-meaning but misguided people are voting for deletion of this list on the false assumption that its originator and editors had an ulterior anti-Semitic motive. I say that I don't believe that for this list or most other such lists; there may be such a motive for the list of criminals. - RachelBrown 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: listing only publishing houses that predominantly deal with Jewish subject matter would make sense. This list in its present form doesn't. Delete unless improved. Pilatus 00:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP
All Lists are nominated by Arniep. see [25].
All biographical encyclopedia, "Who's Who", "Persoenlichkeiten" are nominated. It's so crazy.
「努力を尽くした人名一覧（人名百科事典）が、一人の人物によって、すべて削除されようとしている」!! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews, when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incase you are not aware, you cannot vote twice on the same AFD. Thanks. Antidote 19:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's to me, it's not two votes. It's one - abstain. --Elliskev 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg, who voted twice before. Antidote 21:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice or hostility. Edwardian 22:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I oppose lists by religion and in this specific case can see no purpose except to reinforce racial stereotypes, i.e. the Jews control the media. --JJay 02:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first I thought this would be a list of publishing companies that publish Jewish resources, but no it's just a list of companies w/purported Jewish executives, which makes me wary of the motives behind such a list (i.e., "Jews run the media" etc ala [http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/whorules.html Stormfront]). Not encyclopedic. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology[edit]

Delete We don't even have a List of Recipients of the National Medal of Technology for god sakes StabRule 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a partial list in National Medal of Technology. Why not complete it? - RachelBrown 12:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviosuly. Dottore So 15:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More listcruft gone amok. And why do I have a feeling no one was planning to create List of Buddhist Recipients of National Medal of Technology? 23skidoo 15:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons all List of Jewish whatchamacallits. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all such lists where religion is likley irrelevant to the achievement. DES (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason to suppose that being Jewish is irrelevant - in similar lists, such as Jewish Nobel Prize winners and Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society, it is clear that the proportion of Jews in these categories is quite high, so there is prima facie evidence of some link - RachelBrown 13:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all lists of achievement by ethnicity. Kappa 18:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they did not win the award for being Jewish so the list is pointless --TimPope 18:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DESiegel, and for the reasons I mentioned in other such lists. Nandesuka 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of recipients of the National Medal of Technology (national in what country?) and seriously EXPAND, or if that fails delete. The fact they're Jewish has nothing to do with them winning the medal. Makes no point in sorting that way. Let's get a list of winners first and worry about sorting later. - Mgm|(talk) 20:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a home to lists of random unrelated things. Durova 23:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic, per nom. Jtmichcock 03:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being a certain nationality often has nothing to do with being a certain profession either so according to that argument all the professions by nationality categories/lists should be merged. Arniep 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's an infinite amount of these lists - List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science should probably be voted on too. 65.9.143.76 00:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 12:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there has been a recent flood of these AfDs; nobody can explain convincingly why this applies to Jews but not (say) Armenians or gay people. - RachelBrown 12:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Lists per country are interesting, lists per nationality are not.  Grue  18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this is against the rules, but User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg has been saving deleted jewish lists on his user talk page and linking to them. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 20:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews in business[edit]

Nominating for the same reasons as List of Jewish criminals, List of Jewish bankers, List of Jewish publishers, and so on. At their best, such lists are unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. There are, by my count, 24 subcategories similar to this under List of Jews. I'm not saying they should all be nominated right now -- I need to review them carefully -- but I think we should at least consider an omnibus AfD on this issue. Nandesuka 19:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just to be clear. Nandesuka 19:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. 23skidoo 23:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I'd support and omnibus AfD. Durova
  • Keep — I found this list somewhat interesting. — RJH 01:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "List of (religion) (profession)" is not a useful navigation tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Staying out of most of these 'Lists of Jews' 'Lists of Muslims' 'Lists of Discordians' debates, but there's no attempt to define what 'in business' means. --Last Malthusian 09:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague. Arniep 12:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yyyair 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to highlight the stereotype....plus as stated above. 72.144.139.115 18:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arneip. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 23:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per List of Jewish Businessmen. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim athletes[edit]

Delete this for the same reason the List of Catholic Athletes is up for deletion (see its AfD here).

Inclusion criteria are overly broad, and the faith of none of those people had an influence on their chosen profession. Pilatus 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of pejorative political puns[edit]

Most of these, rather than being any sort of pun, are simply lame attacks on people. There are no references, no cites, and no reason to believe that this page will be anything but a dropping ground for whatever dumb nickname people come up with for the famous people they dislike. —Cleared as filed. 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- nothing but personal attacks. Reyk 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only to the extent that refs can be sourced (by something other than a blog, please). Move to a better name, too. Yes, this is "nothing but personal attacks", but not the author's own inventions - rather, a sort of anthropological record of personal attacks (and some complimentary alliterations) historically made by others. BD2412 T 02:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Valid and potentially interesting topic, crap content, which is a keep, I guess. I tried doing the cleanup, a while ago; reverted shortly thereafter. Didn't have the heart to fight it, but sourcing isn't the least of our problems - most of that page isn't actually any form of pun, and many of the ones that are puns are so contrived I have a hard time classing them as that. Ho hum. Shimgray | talk | 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed a set of not-puns, going for a nice scattershot effect across the political spectrum. But this is riddled with them, and some are actually pretty interesting - there's some historically notable nicknames there - in the UK, Howard's "Dracula", Chamberlain's "Great Appeaser", or the wonderful "Chat-show Charlie"; in the US, "Tailgunner Joe" which it would be nice to have collected. A lot of the puns that aren't just examples of "made up 'cause I think it sounds funny" (cf/ Ulysses S. Graft) are/were actually in use as nicknames - "Dumbya" or "Bliar" are pretty common, I remember "Clintonista" cropping up a good bit (though not as a personal nickname), and a collation of these is encyclopedic - especially when we start going back to the c19th, politics used to run on this stuff. So, I've rolled back, and suggest...
    • Rename to List of perjorative political nicknames, keep all the stuff that's actually a) verifiable and b) ever got used in any significant amount, and see what it looks like then. (Alternately, rename to simply List of political nicknames, and bring in the positive ones, too... which I suppose is probably a better idea. We already have List of U.S. Presidential nicknames, and the wonderful Politician and personality nicknaming in Quebec, could bring in stuff from List of nicknames of historical personages... it has potential. Shimgray | talk | 02:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and ruthlessly purge and source. The POV explanations have to go, too. Matthew Brown 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "Good topic/bad content" is, for me, a clear delete, but I think it's a bad topic, too. While we wait for the ideal authors to emerge and correct the mess, we have persistent "crap," and there's simply no need for that. The ideal author will create a new page as certainly as remedy this morass. However, a "pun" is in the ear of the beholder, and "pejorative" is in the ear of the beholder, and the list of such doubly subjective things would serve no actual purpose in that it would not be exportable, nor would it illuminate any other subject. Thus, it is inherenly POV and does not serve the function of a list. Geogre 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough call. Delete, due to insensitivity. How would you like to be made fun of? It's more of a discussion topic amongst friends, or a joke in some casual form, but not in an encyclopedia. - splot 04:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK)
  • Delete this silly, recentist listcruft. Marskell 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 11:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SpLoT and Geogre. Anville 11:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many of these pejorative nicknames are valid and notable. All we need to check out for POV violations - items that claim a particular politician is something, other than he/she is called something. — JIP | Talk 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though major refactoring is in order (it can be dealt with once the AFD is dispensed with). Agree with others that all entries must be sourced; and that POV material should be removed. (Note--explainations of an insult are OK as long as they are couched with appropriate disclaimer--Wikipedia must not take the position that a given politician, right or left, is bad). Note: Were a suitable refactoring to be proposed which included deletion of this page, I might vote to delete--but absent a concrete proposal for a better home for the content here, my vote is to keep. --EngineerScotty 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for delightful alliteration (though, sadly, moving it to List of pejorative political nicknames may be necessary). Add clean-up and cite-sources tags instead of VfD ones, fellas! Think of stuff like this from a long-term rather than a short-term perspective, as Wikipedia's not on a deadline: it's easier to have a mediocre article and slowly improve it over the years than to repeatedly delete and undelete it again and again until finally everyone's satisfied. If the subject matter's good and the article sucks, improve the article! -Silence 22:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the point I was making in the nomination was that the subject matter sucks too. Obviously not everyone agrees. —Cleared as filed. 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then perhaps the dispute is semantic. There's not a lot of difference between whether we delete this article and make a new one for a general "list of pejorative nicknames" of sorts, or whether we move it to a new title and completely restructure and rewrite it, citing sources. It's just slightly easier to do the latter, since we have actual material to work with. -Silence 22:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please bd2412 is right we should write about the sourced puns Yuckfoo 23:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources would be nice - looks like someone has started to do so under the George Bush entry. Maybe make at least one external inline ref a pre-requisite for new additions. Unsourced ones could be maintained on the talk page or a sublist thereof until ready to move over. Turnstep 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV listcruft. MCB 07:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of puns? Half of these are not really puns, but rather random name-calling.  Grue  18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I count something like 21d-15k, and serious disagreement. Those who gave no reason or whose reason was paranoia should consider themselves discounted from the debate. -Splashtalk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholics[edit]

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholics

Strong Delete So I suppose this is going to list all 1 billion Catholics, yea right. Delete on basis of utterly pointless lists. 65.9.112.108 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you're officially nominating the hundreds and hundreds of lists on Wikipedia just like this one and Europeans, you should probably announce this VfD a bit more broadly so we can properly get the community's consensus. I don't see how this list is any different from every other list on Wikipedia that lists noteworthy members of a certain race, religion, nationality, etc. -Silence 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is just a silly list of lists. Pilatus 14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, that's because it's been subdivided into a number of different lists. The purpose of this list is to improve navigation between all of those lists; it makes no more sense to delete this for being a "list of lists" than it would make sense to delete a category that only has categories within it for being a "category of categories"; such pages are very useful tools. -Silence 19:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these lists are (potentially) useful, like the List of Catholic philosophers and theologians, others are pointless, for example the List of Catholic Athletes. I will be doing some weeding and put the more useless lists up for AfD. The List of Catholics is utterly silly. No one is notable for following a religion - the religion a person follows becomes notable when it has had an impact on some aspect of a person's life. Pilatus 00:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want to delete some of the Roman Catholic lists and not others, why not just delete the bad ones and leave this article as a hub for the good ones? What alternative method do you propose we use instead of this page for navigating from one list of Roman Catholics to another? Categories? A template or "see also" list with all the links provided? -Silence 18:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other bad lists don't justify this one as well. Dottore So 15:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they don't. But it's dishonest to phrase this debate as whether or not a single sect of a single religion's list should be deleted, rather than making it clear that hundreds of lists are on the line with this one vote, not only every religious list (of which there are dozens), but every list that is similarly broad. Personally, I don't see why this couldn't be a perfectly useful list to numerous people, and the existence of the category makes it much easier to maintain, but whether you think this should be deleted or not, the debate should be clarified such that it doesn't look like we're attacking a single religion's list. Why did the nominator nominate "List of Roman Catholics" rather than just nominating List of Christians? -Silence 19:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way way way too broad. Besides, there's already a category or two covering this. 23skidoo 15:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are. And numerous categories and lists are doubles of each other, because neither a category nor a list is perfect; having both serves as a system of checks and balances, of sorts. Are you aware of the major advantages a list has over a category? If not, I'll gladly enlighten you about the problems with maintaining something like a category that's so much less centralized than a list, that lacks the coherent history file a list does which makes keeping it high-quality so easy. Obviously, categories have their advantages to (like being linked to on every page a member of the category is a part of), but you'd have a hard time arguing that lists don't have some major advantages over categories. Contrary to popular opinion, including both in some cases can actually give the best of both worlds; just something to consider, don't vote blindly because there's also a category of a similar nature. And even if one does, that person should make quite certain to do the same for the countless other articles of the same nature. There's no point having votes like this just to breed inconsistency; let's be straightforward about what is and isn't being voted on, from the onset! -Silence 19:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Silence, but I could do without. Descendall 16:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enables users to find notable Catholics more easily than the categories do. Kappa 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 23skidoo listcruft --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep--HistoricalPisces 18:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, verifiable. Youngamerican 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiable? How, pray tell, exactly does one verify this list? Nandesuka 05:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are ways you can verify baptismal records, church attendance, and what they've said in autobiographies or interviews about their faith. For example on trying to fix List of Catholic musicians I went to Moya Brennan's site and it stated one of the important points of her autobiography was to give people a sense of her Catholicism. You can't prove what's in peoples hearts, but that's true of any belief issue. In that sense that'd even be true of List of Communists as an example.--T. Anthony 21:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Nandesuka 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silence and Kappa. Lists are only supposed to contain links to people who have a chance at getting a Wikipedia article. And "listcruft" is not a valid reason to delete. List have other functions than categories and they should be able to exist side by side. - Mgm|(talk) 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or at least rename to something more specific. As it stands it's a daft, unmaintainable and overly general list. Marcus22 20:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; no basis for deletion identified. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not an encyclopedia article - no way. --Doc ask? 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above 65.10.7.150 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — No valid reason for deletion identified. It's a valid list of lists. — RJH 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what categories are for. Furthermore, there are such serious quality problems with these lists that it is very questionable whether they are "valid" at all. Cleaning them up would be about as much work as rebuilding them from scratch. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not one of them says how they were made, what sources were used, or what objective criteria were used for inclusion. If they said "List of composers whose Wikipedia articles identify them as Roman Catholics" that would be OK, but they don't. It would just as much work to check them one name at at time as it is to rebuild the list from scratch.
2) This article purports to be a "list of Roman Catholics." But it is comprised of lists that say simply that they are lists of "Catholics." Are these lists restricted to Roman Catholics or not? There is no way to tell—other than to check every entry individually.
3) What are we to make of the section of List of Catholic composers that says simply "The great majority of composers listed on the following pages: The great majority of composers listed on the following pages: Renaissance composers, Italian composers, French composers ?" Plausible, but I hope we're shooting higher than "plausible." Whoever wrote that couldn't possibly know it is true unless he counted them, which would require knowing which were Catholic (or Roman Catholic), in which case they could and should have been listed. Conversely, knowing that "the great majority" of Italian composers about as useful as knowing that a stopped clock is right twice a day. It doesn't tell you anything useful unless you know which are Catholic, just as the clock doesn't tell you anything useful unless you know when it is right. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. OK, I just checked a couple at random. Maurice Ravel is included in List of Catholic composers, but our article on Ravel not only does not identify him as Roman Catholic, it says "Ravel was not religious and was probably an atheist." Shoddy. Perhaps someone hazarded a guess that the "great majority" of French composers are Roman Catholic and figured, hey, that's close enough for Wikipedia work. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most spot-on posts I have read for a long time. I want to vote delete all over again. But I'll settle for shouting 'hear, hear' --Doc ask? 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. P. S. The very entry for Agnieszka Holland in "List of Catholic directors and producers" says she is "now roughly an agnostic." How does "roughly an agnostic" = "Roman Catholic?" The article on Agnieszka Holland says she "was born to a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, and was raised a Catholic." So, are these supposed to be "lists of people who were raised as Catholics, regardless of their parents' religious affiliation or those of their parents?" No, because the same list includes "Lars von Trier, convert." Once again, though, our article on Lars von Trier happens to say exactly nothing about the religious affiliations of himself, as child or adult, or his parents.
I suggest voting "Move to List of people whom some Wikipedians are almost sure they read somewhere were some kind of Catholic sometime in their life but don't happen to remember exactly where and can't be bothered to check, then delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, lists are inherently about notable individuals and should include the information as verified from an article. If the article doesn't say they're catholic, they can't be listed as such. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 02:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I generally support lists, this one is just entirely too broad. If only notable people are supposed to be on it, use a category instead. And even then, restrict to people whose religion is somehow inherently important to their story. Turnstep 03:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the as-always convincing Dpbsmith. Denni ☯ 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dpbsmith. u p p l a n d 05:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to abstain. The problem is actually rather with some of the sublists; lists of Catholics should be limited to manageable things, such as Catholic priests, religious writers etc, and perhaps notable Carholics in countries where they are a very small minority. Listing Catholic artists, politicians etc, in general and according to a loose definition of who is a Catholic, will be like combining almost every person from all lists by nationality for French, Italian, Spanish etc. people of that occupation in one list. I think everyone can realize that this is silly and unmaintainable. u p p l a n d 15:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith. The Wikimedia Foundation could not afford the server space to make this list comprehensive. Anville 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto. — Haeleth Talk 13:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly-broad listcruft that's already covered by cats anyhow. Marskell 15:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Listophobia madness. Okay some of you hate lists. That's fine. I don't much care for having to read in multiple columns all the time. Categories are necessary, but having lists should be acceptable. Otherwise much of my work here has been wasting my time at this place.--T. Anthony 17:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next, list of people?. Ejrrjs | [[User talk:Ejrrjs|What?]] 07:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a list of nouns was within the scope of the Wikipedia project (like a list of people by their religious beliefs is), we would have a list of nouns. We do, however, have a category of nouns, at Wiktionary. We also do, however, have a Category:Words, and Category:Lists of words. :) -Silence 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This List of thing is a very wrong way of building a database. Pity that wikipedia doesn't have a database server. Oh! wait! wikipedia DO have a db server...but there is no proper wikisoftware to use it as a database. At least the categories are a step in the right direction so let's use them but let's get rid of these meaningless lists. User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Silence, I think you are largely right. In fact the only place I disagree with you is in the fundamental (and fair) assumption you make that Wikipedia should not be so ad hoc. In my view, why change this? Let's delete the lists as and when they arise. Or not. According to who votes which way on any given day. Sure it leads to muddle &c. Does it matter? It seems to me there are plenty of rules and regulations in the world outside Wiki which were no doubt designed to make things "work" better and, well, they're not exactly making the world a better place to be... Marcus22 14:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole deletion vote is invalid! People who are not logged in registered users have no standing vote and therefore they cannot nominate articles or categories for deletion! Dwain 17:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it happens, that is absolutely not true. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination. The statement that anonymous users can make afd nominations has been in the guide since its very first revision, and no doubt was present in the pages that it was merged from (though I haven't looked). The biggest reason we don't see more anon nominations is afd's ridiculous instruction creep. —Cryptic (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is no different than any other list. The initial objection relates to content. This discussion belongs on Wikipedia talk:Lists regarding what compromises a useful list. This AfD is just a singling-out of a particular list subject - Catholics in this case. --Elliskev 17:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that and it's setting pretty bad with me. The arguments given "Catholics are common", "Let's replace every list with a Category" don't quite work. There are far more Christians then just Catholics yet List of Christian entertainers is untouched. Even though it defines "entertainer" so broadly it includes everything from NFL coaches to Pulitzer Prize winners. Islam is by most estimates larger then Catholicism today, but List of Muslims has been given a warning instead of going straight for the jugular. I don't think there's necessarily an agenda here, but it doesn't feel right.--T. Anthony 13:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Lists like these just don't make sense - there's no way you can name so many people. 65.10.44.158 22:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'VERY STRONG KEEP It is pure Catholic hatred going on here folks! Plank 23:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Be very careful. Many people voting delete have given their reasons. Your allegation that they are motivated by bigotry amounts to an unsubstantiated personal attack. Incidently, you have given no rationale for your own keep vote. --Doc ask? 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I might've inspired that, sorry. I do think it seems like Catholic and Jewish lists were targeted disproportionately. That did strike me as slightly strange. There may have been too many of both kinds of lists, but I think it would've "set off flags" less if it had been more limited or gone solely after the marginal cases like List of Catholic American Actors or List of Jewish superheroes. In the Catholic case two or even three Catholic lists were put on the same delete vote which caused me massive confusion because there'd be one that struck me as valid while the other two sounded like potential nonsense or redundant.
That said I think the main issue isn't any specific prejudice as even List of agnostics got close to deletion even though I did it out of annoyance. I think that things in List of people by belief make many Wikipedians very uncomfortable. I can find versions of these lists in some encyclopedias as a Wikipedia article is in some ways comparable to a single Encyclopedia page. Still I want to respect that discomfort now that I'm aware of it, but at the same time I don't agree with it. I think in some cases you can know a person's belief and that belief makes them as much part of a "group" as nationality does, maybe moreso in some cases. Well in least you can know it as well as you can know anything. I mean many here act like religion is too iffy, but that nationality is not. They should check the old debates on Talk:Marie Curie to realize sometimes nothing is clearcut. I mean is she French or Polish or both or neither? I think you have to accept a bit of uncertainy or even Categories and everything else would fall apart some degree.--T. Anthony 06:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is just as important as a list of all the Muslims. JG of Borg 00:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the extensive, cogent, and well-written arguments presented by Dbsmith. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for this particular list, pending a much needed and much wider discussion regarding the hundreds of similar lists as per Silence. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list should be kept, it is a legitimate and valuable list. It is just silly nonsense to suggest that a billion Catholics will be on the list, that is stupid! There are more Muslims in the world than Catholics does 65.9.112.108 also want lists of Muslims to be erased? People listed should either be well known individuals or people included in Wikipedia. I would also like to comment that people voting one way or the other should not have to explain their votes! That is unethical and by pointing out that so-and-so voted without including his reasoning is a personal attack. So stop it! Digby 03:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were doing great until you got to "I would also like to comment". It's true that people voting on VfDs don't have to explain their votes, but they certainly should explain their votes on such, if doing so isn't too terrible of an inconvenience. And asking people to explain votes is absolutely acceptable conduct. Pointing out that someone voting without explaining his reasoning is as much a personal attack as taping a frog to a doughnut is. That is, not at all. "Personal attack" would be saying "This person voted without explaining his vote. What a fucking idiot!" Remove the italicized bit and you're in the green, baby. Though even if it was, somehow, a personal attack, I don't see how disobeying a Wikipedia policy could, on its own, be considered "unethical"... That's a bit much, don't you think? -Silence 03:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Per all keep arguments such as Silence. Also oppose anon noms for this type of list. --JJay 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Nobody gains any encyclopedic information with a list of catholics. There are no lists of any other sort of religion. Similar lists should also be deleted. DaGizza Chat (c) 08:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Add a Category for this and let's take care of this Listmania, please. Since we're now getting a warning as to page size, I've moved what discussion I could to the Talk page.  RasputinAXP  T C 16:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT-"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." I've kind of worn myself too much in doing that, but keeping in that can be done. That said, I will put these lists in Category:Lists of Christians in case.--T. Anthony 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 72.144.71.234 04:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keep arguments such as those by Silence. I also think that anons should not be allowed to vote! David
  • Rename. In its current form its basically a umbrella page leading to other lists that make more sense (e.g. list of converts), but it should not be called "list of Catholics" - such a page wouldn't make much sense, as others have stated above. Str1977 11:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If I may opine, it is absurd that we now dispute the second deletion nomination for this article. Speaking personally, I can sympathise with the contributors, who have undoubtedly devoted much time to the page (I know I have). And practically speaking, this list provides a valuable and convenient resource; objecting to organisation and similar questions is a matter of legitimate debate, and certainly the organisation is imperfect. But the elimination of the entire article is simply unwise.--Thomas Aquinas 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs over fifteen minutes in length[edit]

This has no value as a navigation tool, and no useful commentary. It's hopelessly incomplete, demonstrates no trend, and has arbitrary inclusion criteria (why not 10 minutes? or 20? or 14?). This is listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I'm tired of seeing it on my watchlist. :) Also, what AMiB said. The inclusion criteria in particular bother me. This is not a "list of songs over fifteen minutes in length". It's a list of songs over fifteen minutes in length that are not classical or operas or rock operas or live or extended versions or medleys or hidden tracks or songs divided up in funny ways...... —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's silly. Gerrit CUTEDH 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some better distinction needs to be made between "songs" and "works of music" (of which songs are just one type). Also the 15 minute qualifier is totally arbitrary, as stated. --W.marsh 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oy. Dottore So 21:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, 15 minutes is a bit arbitrary, but it's a quarter of an hour, if that has any meaning. It could be 10 or 30 minutes, but it's 15. Why not? Why are there 60 mintues in an hour - that's kind of arbitrary too. The criteria are a bit specific, but you can basically state them as such: no classical pieces, and the song must be a continuous song (i.e. extension by silence between a hidden track doesn't count). I kind of like the list, but I suppose it doesn't fit in too well. I'll defend it, but delete it if you must. Folkor 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps it should be simply a list of unsually lengthy songs without the specific time cutoff. - SimonP 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep but revise and cull. This should be restricted to actual "songs" as opposed to experimental sound pieces and classical music that routinely run long. A friend of mine created a noise music piece on his computer that ran something like 3 hours. But I'd like to see someone sing for that long. 23skidoo 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - what would make a song a "song"? Electronic and experimental songs are still songs by most definitions. Folkor 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insofar as any song can be "remixed' to be over fifteen mnutes. How do you know? Fifteen minutes highly arbitrary (maybe Warhol influenced?). Jtmichcock 03:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Remixes aren't allowed in the list. If you mean that in the production of the original version, a song can be mixed to any length, that's true - but that's part of the art of making a song. Folkor 17:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HorsePunchKid. Denni ☯ 05:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Agree with SimonP. --Andylkl 17:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it useful and I have no idea how to find this out otherwise. Also as a category this would be essentially goofy.--T. Anthony 17:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to List of unusually lengthy songs, and subdivide that page by certain ranges of length. i.e., the top section might be "5 to 10 minutes long" (though most songs would have to be near 10 minutes at least to be considered "unusually long", depending on the specific song), then "10 to 15 minutes long", then "15 to 20", then "20 to 30", then "30 to 1 hour", then "over 1 hour long"—something like that, anyway. Putting them in order of length just seems to make more sense to me than putting them in alphabetical order by artist, though I can see strong arguments for either, since the current page looks quite nice... But the reason I suggest this is, many songs are known for being "long" that only 10 or 12 or 8 minutes long, like "Hey Jude"; although it might open a can of worms and require us to start finding sources and citing them to show that the songs have been considered "unusually long" by various people, it would also remedy the arbitrary "15-minute cutoff" and protect the page from being spammed by dozens of non-noteworthy songs that just happen to be over 15 minutes long. -Silence 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Completely arbitrary, purposeless, borderline indiscriminate collection of Hornbyesque information. Inclusion/exclusion criteria is frankly bizarre and entries could run into the tens of thousands if every jazz, techno, arabic, african etc. piece running +15 minutes was added. For an example, see the more than 200 entries for Klaus Schulze. As few of the songs have any notabilty, for length or otherwise, should be called List of mostly non notable songs by many obscure bands over 15 minutes in length. --JJay 01:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. But I like my idea more. Make it more vague and require sourcing for notability; there are plenty of unusually long songs out there that have nonetheless (or as a result?) achieved a fair amount of popularity, or sometimes infamy. It's not a completely valueless topic; we just need to assert notability with more vigor, and change the arbitrary "15 minute" limit to a vaguer, but ultimately more complete, listing of especially noteworthy "long" songs in general. -Silence 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: a "list of unusually long songs could include every song that has been remarkably successful despite its great length, or otherwise very noteworthy songs that are unusually long for their genre. I know I'd personally be interested in such a list; what are the upper limits of length in fairly well-known songs (note: both in the English-speaking world ane elsewhere!)? "15 minutes" is too arbitrary a threshhold, and gives a false impression to some contributors that any song over 15 minutes merits inclusion, even if it's not noteworthy. A broadening (and clarification) of this list's topic would allow us to start working on this problem. -Silence 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JJay. MCB 07:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very long songs are notable.  Grue  18:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clearly, we need to reach some sort of compromise. Even though I like the page, I can admit that it has gotten a bit out of hand. Assuming we do keep the page around in some manner (which I still promote), we ought to decide what the best way to do that is. Folkor 21:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it is an interesting article, although "over 15 minutes" is a bit questionable, and this list could in fact go on forever. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly "the bar" should be raised to 20 minutes and it be limited to songs by noted singers or bands.(Several songs listed are by red-linked groups I've never heard of)--T. Anthony 05:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bar should be lowered to at the very least ten minutes (and preferrably even shorter), and the list should be limited to noteworthy songs by noteworthy bands. :) The challenge here is not to make the list require increasingly long songs to get in, but to require citations showing that the songs have been considered unusually long by noteworthy or reputable sources. "15+ minutes" on its own is an arbitrary number (as any number would be), but the general concept of "unusually long songs" is a highly significant and relevant topic to analyze in a list such as this. -Silence 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After I posted that I changed my mind. Although I think I'd keep it over 15 minutes rather then reducing. However the length is not the important thing, limiting it to songs and artists who are themselves notable is the main thing. That limit should start.--T. Anthony 11:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed most of the red names and admittedly it's still very very long.--T. Anthony 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion about whether it should be at 10, 15 or 20 minutes, but the first thing I'd like to suggest is to remove entries which don't even have an article about the artist yet, similar to the list of albums article. --Andylkl (talk) (contrib) 08:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ∾ The subject of the article is completely arbitrary, as noted above by several other individuals. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Folkor: a summary deletion isn't a compromise. Until we can figure out more useful guidelines for keeping the article relevant, usable, and [even] more Wikipedia-friendly, there's no reason to blow the old one away. Where else do you go for data organized like this? --electric counterpoint 05:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The article is messy, but not worthless. Arguing that 15 minutes is questionable is pointless, as who's to decide what a non-questionable amount of time is?Dark Weasel 07:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JJay. KillerChihuahua 12:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title mentions genres other than the genre of the song itself[edit]

Is there ANY possible use for this page? Seems like listcruft to me, right up there with List of songs recorded by a female artist who prefers flats to heels and List of music videos that were not recorded in Davenport but in an area that looks strikingly similar. Delete. --InShaneee 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents[edit]

List of terrorist incidents is an article consisting entirely of original research. Attempts have been made to cite sources and have failed. Labeling certain events "acts of terrorism" and labeling people responsible for the events "terrorists" simply because an editor wants it to be so is against Wikipedia policy.

  • Delete --The Random Element 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I do agree with some of the points raised, this article does not deserve to be deleted. It was actually quite helpful in finding examples when I needed them. Daemon8666 22:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I agree with some of the points but believe that this article needs to stay. I think that most of the incidents listed on the page would be considered terrorism by most of the world, though there are of course several disputed incidents. PBP 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful overall, as mentioned above. PJM 15:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important and useful article. --Kalsermar 17:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PBP. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above. If it's causing problems then fix it or list it for cleanup. Deletion is not the answer in this case. - Mgm|(talk) 20:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Inherently POV article, and classifying events before the 20th century as "terrorism" is anachronistic too. — Haeleth Talk 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable and encyclopedic. Possibly needs more verification. Capitalistroadster 22:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs a cleanup, not a deletion. --Loopy 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list is going to be inherently POV and probably subject to edit wars. For example, the FBI classifies the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front as the worst terrorist groups in the USA. Why are the numerous attacks by the ALF and ELF not on this list? ♠DanMS 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment replyThis list will be long in the building. A better question might be why has no one gotten around to adding them in yet, wouldn't it? Or am I wrong here? Daemon8666 14:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, despite what I see as a problematic title. Denni ☯ 05:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- if only as a means of avoiding ethnically-based sub-lists. This way they can all go in together. Does anyone know the date on which General Cromwell's troops beat a prison governor to death with his own (wooden) leg ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep potentially useful. UkPaolo 14:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination in bad faith. Nominator unhappy that his edits are not accepted to the article. Attempts at discussion resulted in this AfD. - Tεxτurε 18:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 06:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article provides encyclopedic information and should stay. – Zntrip 05:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loaf (character)[edit]

Sounds to me like a non-notable character made of plasticine by some students. The page was originally at Loaf, so I moved it to Loaf (character) and added the AFD notice. Loaf now redirects to bread, as before. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. It's partly written in first person too, which doesn't help. Flowerparty 06:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable character by some students. Combining Lachlan Macintosh and Loaf get zero hits on Google. Unverifiable. Don't forget to delete the images. -- Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no meaningful content or history. Turnstep 03:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I gues it shoulkd be deleted then...I really dont even know what I was doin I had no idea wikipedia was this strict about articles. I'm no professional writer or anything so yea this is pretty much just messing around. I was just bored and decided to immortalize Loaf on the internet. Whatever I dont have the patience to make this article perfect so...delete it I suppose.--PureVai 03:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loaf is cool, you should put him up on a blog, but it doesnt belong here. Delete. Astrokey44 13:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Punkmorten. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jansen[edit]

Tagged as an A7 (nn-bio) speedy, but does not IMO quite qualify. However, does not seem notable enough for wikipedia. Delete. DES (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly one of the ones I tagged nn-bio. nn musician.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prefer speedy as nn-bio I was the one who placed the speedy anyways --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on my rewrite. Asserts notability. Punkmorten 22:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on rewrite. Member of notable band (multiple albums and international performances) - Mgm|(talk) 18:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by Punkmorten. Hall Monitor 22:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A guy who is well worth it to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Member of two very notable band. -- SoothingR(pour) 17:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - founder of a notable metal band. Song writer & composer in two notable metal bands. What exactly is not 'notable' about him? Supersonic^ 12:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. The creator of the article finds this debate frivolous — but living with debate is part of knowing your article should survive. -Splashtalk 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Russinovich[edit]

Is this guy really notable? I think this should redirect to 2005 Sony CD copy protection controversy. — Timwi 16:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, He's notable.
    1. He's recieved a great deal of coverage in electronic media.
    2. He's the author of several books.
    3. He's widely respected in his field.
    4. He's the creator of many widely used programs.
    5. google his name gets 482,000 results.
  • I'd vote to keep the article. — ProveIt 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you back those claims? For example with links to those electronic media? - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote to keep - Russinovich is a notable writer on these topics. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.54.73 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2005
  • He's Already in, keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.195.144 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-18 02:51:42 UTC
  • The article tells us that this person is a published author of both books and magazine articles, and provides a bibliography of some of the books and articles. The article also links to press coverage where this person's research has sparked newsworthy discussions, both recently, as reported on Wikinews, and in 1996, as reported by Schulman. This person appears to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Keep. Uncle G 20:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This person has received international media coverage and is well noted in his field. Paul Cyr 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must keep. Russinovich is a very well known field expert on Windows OS internals (kernel and other low level topics), and for years his books on the subject have been considered mandatory reading for engineers whose work involve low level programming on Windows.
  • Considering he is recognized as one of the greatest authorities in Windows internals and is mentioned in various advisories from Microsoft itself I think an article about him is apropriate. Rnbc 14:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the guy who started this article, and considering the responses here, I find the deletion rec essentially frivolous. Can it be removed now? Mateo_LeFou 23 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 11:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marti Wong[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable game developer Denni ☯ 05:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Composer of a notable game. — Instantnood 07:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep malformed afd Dlyons493 Talk 08:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One guy who worked on one game, according to the article. That's not notability or significant industry achievement. If the "keep" voters above can explain the other things he's done or why the nominator's habits are any reason to keep an article on some dude, it would help a lot. Geogre 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep apparently he wrote the games together with his brother. He was not part of a huge team as common in the games industry. Since his games have extensive articles, I can't see why he shouldn't. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 12:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable[26] -- Kaszeta 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Sorry, just not notable enough. A guy who worked on an obscure computer game in the late 90s is stretching the concept of notability to breaking point. Reyk 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep malinformed nomination. Please spell out your nominations.Gateman1997 22:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is an important game programmer and people might want to learn about him at wikipedia the sum of human knowledge Yuckfoo 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NNN and per Gateman1997 Turnstep 03:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Game developers who write games which sell are as notable as any author. No reason provided by the nominator as to why this person is "NN", Geogre does a much better job at explaining, but I am more convinced by Mgm's argument. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rhobite 03:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gummerson[edit]

The page seems like more of a vanity page than anything else — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsmith_84 (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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McMartin preschool[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Preschools are not notable, but this legal case apparently is. Sorry for not withdrawing this earlier but my free time is limited. ComCat 05:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the longest and most expensive trial in US history is non notable? Why? CanadianCaesar 03:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with CanadianCaesar. It's obviously an important article. 68.61.255.12 03:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the preschool sexual abuse furor is definitely encyclopedic and N -- er, notable. The article might be better titled McMartin preschool case or something similar, though. - squibix 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I Agree with squibix--FRS 04:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename per squibix. Saberwyn 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very notable school. Durova 05:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Squibix Denni ☯ 05:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an important and famous legal case, noted as the most expensive trial in the history of the United States. One has to wonder if the nominator even bothers to read the articles. Silensor 05:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable historic legal case. Concur with renaming. The article is about the legal case, not about the school. Note, however: There are perhaps a dozen or so links in the Wikipedia to McMartin preschool that will have to be fixed. ♠DanMS 05:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're aware that moving the page will create a redirect from the old location to the new one, right?
      • Of course. But it’s always better to fix redirects where we can. Every redirect fixed takes a little bit more load off of our terribly overloaded Wikipedia. ♠DanMS 03:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per Squibx. Our guidelines on merging and moving state that a redirect is automatically created when an article is moved so it shouldn't be a problem. Well-known case with at one least one book being written about it The Abuse of Innocence: the McMartin preschool trial see [27]. 30,900 Google news results for "McMartin preschool" see [28]. Capitalistroadster 06:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable. --William Pietri 06:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established. I think this might be my first keep vote on a school-related AFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it count? The article's about a criminal case that involves a preschool, not about a preschool. Saberwyn 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't imagine why this was nominated. -Willmcw 08:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep malformed afd Dlyons493 Talk 08:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major court case. Nominating this article with a "NN, D" is rubbish. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, keep, probably, but I have to agree that the McMartin case may well already be covered. We may be looking at duplicate content one side or the other. Geogre 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there's a duplicate article on the case, perhaps you can find them, by going to an article it should link to and go through whatlinkshere for that article. Pereferable that article would be about a person involved in the case, to make sure you have a limited number of links to check. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a very brief cruise searching "McMartin" via Wikipedia search, and the only results I can find regarding the case link directly to this article. There is a redlink in Pulitzer Prize for Criticism pointing to 'McMartin Pre-School child molestation case', but nothing else links to the uncreated article. Saberwyn 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The article is about a legal case not the school. Catchpole 12:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep extremely notable case. Dottore So 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Carina22 12:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity's sake, rename McMartin Pre-School case and redirect. This should never have been nominated, in my opinion. Perodicticus 12:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has history of AFD abuse, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. ComCat strikes again with the inability to even Google[29] a topic before declaring it non-notable. Perhaps a rename and redirect, however. -- Kaszeta 15:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Some very productive discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Schools. Please join us and help shape future policy regarding school articles. David D. (Talk) 17:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Marskell 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally preschools would be "delete and/or merge" even per developing consensus at WP:SCH. However in this case this is an obviously notable preschool so KEEP.Gateman1997 19:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nomination. Nominator obviously did not even read the article. Disrupting WP to make a point? Turnstep 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Rename as McMartin Preschool Case. Highly notable. Jtmichcock 02:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Frigging Keep!!! Did the nominator read even the first sentence of the article before nominating? Speedy keep and strong chastisement for ComCat for either a bad-faith nomination or such utter carelessness it can no more be condoned than bad faith can. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remame. Did anyone read the article? It is about a crime and not the school. I'm not happy with McMartin preschool case as the name but right now it is probably the best choice. Vegaswikian 06:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Preaky 14:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename article. Bad faith nomination. --Andylkl 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection[edit]

Metal Injection: a nonnotable video cast site - delete Spearhead 21:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mirisms[edit]

Can't find evidence of this word being used as described on google. Seems like a vanity neologism to me. delete - CloudedIce 21:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to Wikitionary if this actually is a word. --Aurochs
  • Delete per nom. PJM 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was GARGLE TREE. -Splashtalk 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Ararat Middle School (Topsham, Maine)[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Seabhcan as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuala caffrey[edit]

Dubious; cannot verify, perhaps a hoax. Jasmol 03:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if not verified; no relevant Google hits. Denni ☯ 05:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can verify. Certainly I've never heard of her. Dlyons493 Talk 08:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've dropped a note on the regional Irish noticeboard. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - patent nonsense - these Irish nonsense articles follow a very similar pattern. Djegan 12:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - nonsense --Ryano 12:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odelling[edit]

Googling this word turned up nothing related. It appears that this is a vanity neologism. Delete. - CloudedIce 20:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Odelling is a neologism, but then so were many words we now accept as part of the standard vocabulary. Odelling is quickly becoming a regionalism. I believe the entry should stay and be expanded upon.--Lady Erin 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lady Erin's reply was originally posted on the main article's discussion page by 64.236.128.14, the author of Odelling. Only contributions made by Lady Erin to date are this reply. - CloudedIce 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pada Blog[edit]

Makes no claim of notability and I am unable to verify same as all sources appear to be in Taiwanese. A fair few mentions, but no way of telling if they apply to the subject or whether it is a generic or ambiguous term. I'm sure it would find a place on the Taiwanese Wikipedia, but in en.wikipedia I'd have to rate it unverifiable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, borderline ad. Dottore So 14:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't assert notability. - Bobet 16:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dottoreso and Bobet. — JIP | Talk 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  T C 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Linked site lists "Foundation: 05.09.16", which to me translates as September 16, 2005. Too young to even be remotely notable.- Mgm|(talk) 20:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pav-pav[edit]

minor game text consitsts of only a little more than a single link. Advertising. Zeimusu | Talk page 08:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 04:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hanson[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article, this is a memorial. The subject is not a notable person. He was involved in a notable event but does not merit an article himself.

It is right that victims should be listed somewhere but it does not expand anyone's knowledge about the attacks to know that one of the victims graduated from Joel Barlow High School in 1987.

There are similar articles for other non-notable people who died in the September 11, 2001 attacks for which the same could be said. Spondoolicks 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, WP:NOT a memorial. We're getting a lot of these lately aren't we?  RasputinAXP  T C 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poker blog[edit]

A poker blog is a blog about poker, so we need a whole article on it? Also, this violates wikipedias policy of no original research. Skrewler 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I originally nominated this for speedy for being patently obvious. --Timecop 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately being patently obvious is not on the criteria for speedy deletion apart from if the article says little more than is in the title, unlike this case. Delete. -- Francs2000 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Useless 65.34.232.136 02:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An extended dictdef. Geogre 03:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague, dictdef. - splot 03:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme annoying chick delete --Phroziac(talk) 03:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What's next, "Cornhusking blog: a blog about cornhusking. Some are mostly spam." Jasmol 04:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ridiculous - this is supposed to emulate an encyclopedia, right? :P TedBerg 05:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - poker is ok and blogs are ok, but put the two together and you have less than what you started with. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, content painfully obivous from title. Would also set very bad precedent for food blogs, fashion blogs, soccer blogs, etc. There's nothing special about a blog having a certain topic. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll tell you what's next: some article about Canadian progressivists blog... oh wait... Dottore So 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a waste of bandwidth -- pure vanity. --86.2.56.178 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not vanity, but it is a waste of bandwidth. Also, anonymous users aren't allowed to vote on AFD, but it looks like it's getting deleted anyway. --Phroziac(talk) 13:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, not really worth noting at this point and time. --Depakote 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is this Wikipedia or Blogopedia? This is becoming depressing. --Impi.za 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly, utterly worthless cruft. Reyk 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is almost a transwiki to Wiktionary... but since it isn't, delete. Titoxd(?!?) 04:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what they said. - Randwicked 07:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, pointless, and spammy. - brenneman(t)(c) 10:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incognito 12:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some nice men told me to. Alphax τεχ 15:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictdef. Slartoff 02:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 04:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Port-a-Patch[edit]

Advertisement or nonsense, I can't tell. But either way, it needs to go. --Aurochs

  • I think this is an important part of information - maybe it could be included in the electrophysiologie section... —preceding unsigned comment by 138.245.202.132 (talk • contribs)
  • comment copyvio? Includes verbatim text from this press release [31]. I'm satisfied that it's not a hoax, see [32]. I'd vote delete as advertising, but there is no link to the manufacturer, it's pretty subtle advertising. Pete.Hurd 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fahrenheit Royale 16:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually care what happens to this information, but what do you all think about this: I've been taking information from Electrophysiology (which is too long) and putting it into voltage clamp. There's information on the patch clamp under voltage clamp, but I think patch clamp needs its own page (it's a pretty important technique in neurobio). How bout we make a page with the patch clamp material now in voltage clamp and put whatever info we want to salvage from this page into it in a subsection? I can volunteer for this duty. delldot | talk 03:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preternatural[edit]

dicdef with no hope of expansion, bit of a neologism on the precise meaning (let's quote a work of fiction), could redirect to Supernatural or any number of real articles here DreamGuy 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect per nom. Jasmol 18:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you don't delete it. I found it on a google search and it was very helpful in defining the term and showing it's difference from the term supernatural. (Above vote is by User:70.22.237.252)
  • Make a disambig with supernatural, paranormal, magic, occultism, &c. It's a rare word that people tend to cross-reference if they use it in an article: they think it might need explaining. More than 15 pages link here, including one redirect (praeternatural); outright deletion is going to redlink all of them and invite its recreation. It even has a non-blank talk page. Transwiki to Wiktionary; the quotation may merit transwiki to Wikiquote if it's thought inappropriate for a disambiguation page. Smerdis of Tlön 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and made it a disambiguation page. Smerdis of Tlön 21:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand how it rates a disambiguation page... you aren't disambiguating a term, you are saying it's supernatural or ghosts or etc. which are all just supernatural. At best this is a redirect to supernatural with a mention on that page about the alleged difference between the two. Disambiguation pages are for topics with more than one meaning, not one vague meaning better covered by preexisting articles. DreamGuy 23:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. The non-blank talk page consists of three comments spaced out over almost as many years mainly discussing if it really rates a real article, with one using the term to mean something clearly different from the defintion the main article took from a fictional movie. How that by itself is supposed to be a justification for keeping it is beyond me. DreamGuy 23:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that the page has beein sitting there in its original form for about three years would seem to argue the other way: this page has been around unchallenged for a long time. A short article directing people to the sorts of things that have been called "preternatural" would appear to be appropriate. FWIW, the articles supernatural and paranormal seem to distinguish themselves one from another; if preternatural covers both, it is a candidate for a disambiguation page in your sense as well. Smerdis of Tlön 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that it has been sitting there in its original form for three years show that the article was so unimportant that nobody saw it or cared about it. Arguments that "that's the way it's always been" hold no water. Try arguing for it based upon its actual content... which in this case is simply dicdef with neologistic alternate meaning different from standard usage. DreamGuy 18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps my edit will improve the much-needed disambig process. merge? redirect? i don't know: apologies for unfamiliarity with wikipedia protocols. jaqi, 19 nov 2005


Requesting to improve this seems ok to me, but trying to just outright delete it is nonsense. It's a word not used *that* often and in lieu of an improved explanation of the context this word might be used instead of 'supernatural' etc., this definition serves its purpose. If you go deleting entire pages just because you didn't like how complete it was, how complete is that (much less). (unsigned comment by anon User:65.219.108.116)

Wikipedia deletes dicdefs all the time. That's not "nonsense" that's policy. If anyone wants a definition or a link to a definition in the article they can go to Wiktionary, which is what it is for, and which already defines the word. DreamGuy 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Purelyn[edit]

not notable wikipediatrix 04:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfy and deleted. - Mailer Diablo 23:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raajesh Patil[edit]

Vanity article, created by User of the same name. I don't consider this architect sufficiently notable for inclusion, but didn't feel it quite met the speedy del criteria. UkPaolo 11:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Certainly would agree that not sufficiently notable at this point of time in the notable architects list and hence has been voluntarily deleted from the notable architect's list. Has maintained the article within the Indian architects category and linked to Indian people stub. Hope it is justified to be maintained in these categories.

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 16:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps a case of not understanding the notability criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Bhadani 16:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I think this may be a simple misunderstanding. I have seen users start up articles about themselves when they don't realize that their user page is where they need to post the info. Jtmichcock 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as it is the typical norm for such articles. --Gurubrahma 05:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy else delete until we can get independent references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hughes[edit]

Dare I say ... hoax? Nothing checks out, subtle attempt at humour. David | Talk 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would dare say the same thing. If there is no sourcing information provided, then delete. Joyous | Talk 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. The "Philip Swan prize for Excellence in Science" garners 0 hits on Google. [33] Hall Monitor 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • there would be no match for the philip swan prize as it is a school award at Harrow for pupils who excel in science - Terry Lewis
  • There seem to be some malicious forces at work conspiring to blacken Robin's name. Wikipedia is not as squeaky-clean as you may have been lead to believe.... Dr Simon 'the light refreshment' McKeown
  • Delete as an obvious hoax. Fairly funny, though. Frekja 23:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. We need look only as far as the anon comments above for confirmation of its invalidity. --WAvegetarian 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The addition of Robin Hughes to articles as diverse as Plato and Apollo 13 does suggest this to be a little bit of a hoax, yes... Shimgray | talk | 15:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete you cranks.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Royaked[edit]

Original research, gets a massive total of 1 Google hit. Invented meaning/hoax. Blackcap | talk 21:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And it's a dicdef. Delete. David | Talk 21:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete neologism Pete.Hurd 23:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Varghese[edit]

This smells like a hoax. No pertinent Google hits for "Rufus Verghese" or "Tom Lensher" Fender. Pilatus 14:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as blank page, formerly biography of non-notable person. Capitalistroadster 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rummaan Rathor[edit]

Request on the Helpdesk by the subject of the page, who considers this information to be of a personal nature. - Andre Engels 15:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nn-bio anyway; no in-links. jnothman talk 15:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Speedy delete: perhaps a case of experimenting with wikipedia. I went through the entire history, and found nothing to find mention in an encyclopedia. --Bhadani 16:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The first two "don't delete" votes are by users with contributions only to this article and its AfD, and the third has mainly such contributions. I also agree that Wikipedia is not a How-To. — JIP | Talk 20:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape Drop Party Guide[edit]

Game guide; does not belong in Wikipedia per point 8 of WP:NOT Jasmol 18:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, WP is not a how-to. --InShaneee 20:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete note: article has been replaced with an infantile obsenity (&typo)-laden diatribe against the AfD process. I have reverted to the prior edit. Pete.Hurd 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete note: this guide helped me have a huge party! I dropped everything he said to, and people are still singing my praises! Don't mean to brag, but it's the truth! He did have a point hen he said that the entire runescape category is a giant group of game guides. And yet, there they are. NeverAgain2121 11:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete I am the original author of this guide. The user posting it was helping me with it. Although I wasn't the one who edited it into obscene words and typos, I do wish to keep this guide available. I'm currently adding more to it, as you will see. It will be very helpful, but if you must, I'll understand. I do have a website, and I can put this guide, along with a few others, on that.Jonnyboy14 12:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • do NOT delete, please! This is a very helpful guide! Mine sucked before i saw this. Now i know not to drop steel! N one like steel. Lots of people left when they found out that Addy was the best i had to dop for em. But, now i can make RUNE! Anyway, many sucessful drop parties lie ahead.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Running Maniacs[edit]

Non-notable running club. ERcheck 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nomination. Self-promotion. ERcheck 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 03:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 04:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Running clubs might seem inconsequential outside the running community, but the criteria for an article's notability quite rightly relates to the significance of the subject matter within the relevant community. Apparently, the club hails from a large suburb within the 5th largest metro area in North America. The demographics of this fast growing region indicate this apparently cohesive running club will likely grow rapidly also. The fact that only a handful of running clubs have articles in the Wiki indicates that this niche has been badly neglected. Until a critical mass of such articles can be amassed to provide a gauge, it seems premature to decide this particlular club is not yet worth inclusion. Ombudsman 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Very non-notable. -EnSamulili 11:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN. "Will likely grow" is not good enough. Recreate when/if they reach the notability standards for WP. Don't forget the Running maniacs redirect as well when deleting. Turnstep 00:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a Torontonian and I still don't think a running group in Bowmanville is notable. Bearcat 01:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 14:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samizdata[edit]

not notable, one sentence article Skrewler 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable, plus amount of google search results greatly over exaggerated due to various blog indexes linking to the site. --Timecop 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN blogcruft, delete. ComCat 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable British blog nearly two million Google results for Samizdata see [34] Three Google news results [35]. We need criteria in WP:WEB covering blogs. We have them for Web Comics which are far less important in the scheme of things. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All 3 google news links are to blogs, which actually have nothing to do with the Samizdata site. Also out of 2 million google results, a huge portion is blog indexes linking to the site. --Timecop 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. useless 65.34.232.136 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Samizdata is an extremely well known politics blog. However, I would be surprised if there is a literature about the blog that would satisfy the requirements of WP:V. Certainly I don't think anything more than a couple of sentences could be written about it in encyclopedic fashion. Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a directory of everything in existence. It is an encyclopedia: it covers subjects which have already been studied and/or reported on, and about which there is at least some literature that will satisfy the citation and verificatory requirements of an tertiary reference. I am therefore inclined to ask for a delete. I can be persuaded to ask for a redirect, either to an article on the Russian theme behind the name or to a general article on politics blogs. encephalon 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Update: A redirect to Samizdat is sensible. encephalon 10:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this one-liner somewhere near the bottom of Samizdat and redirect the title. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors should be aware that this page has been targetted by a systematic effort by several users to erase all blog-related entires. The organzing list is here. Editors should also be aware of the systemic bias identified in Wikipedia against non-American content.--Simon.Pole 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with systematic bias or other bullshit. This is a vanity page for a BLOG. --Timecop 09:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. The bullshit is systematically targetting all blog-related entries for deletion. That is a profound level of bullshit. Quite extraordinary, really.--Simon.Pole 09:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will the both of you kindly mind WP:CIVIL? Thanks. I'm sure you can both express your opinions on the merits of the page with your customary decorum. Regards encephalon 09:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Samizdat per Freakofnurture. None of the Google News links are about the blog (only mention it in passing) is it cited by some source like the BBC or something? - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Blogs are a sister phenomenon comparable in significance to Wikis, if not more so, and this blog certainly appears to be notable. No reason to discard this prior to determining a policy on blogs. Ombudsman 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. -EnSamulili 11:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blogs, generally, do not require encyclopedic treatment and this is no exception. Simon.Pole's outburst is surprising: the presence of an organised effort to remove such entries is perfectly acceptable insofar as there are legitimate grounds to contest the validity of such entries. If the effort leads to a consensus to keep or delete, all the better, no? Dottore So 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Delete blogs generally? I hope not. That would kill of Slashdot as well which certainly needs encyclopedic treatment. That's the danger of generalizing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misread my comment. I said blogs, generally - not blogs, universally. I would vote to keep Slashdot absolutely and many others. But there are millions of blogs and imo the vast majority of them don't meet the standard for an entry. I think that about most schools though, so it may just be that my forked tail is souring my mood and obscuring my vision. Dottore So 12:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless, worthless, worthless. Did I say 'worthless'? --86.2.56.178 12:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User 86.2.56.178 seems to be a sock puppet. His contributions [36] suspiciously enough are mostly (>95%) about AfD'ing blog-related articles. Looks like those ppl in that group that wants to systematically delete all blog stuff. __earth 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per FoN --anetode╔╝ 12:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good SEO doesn't make something notable. Has enough vanity outside of the humble walls of wikipedia. --Depakote 12:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know enough about British political blogs to vote here, but the site's Alexa rank is 112,821. -Hapsiainen 13:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty well-known in UK. Seems to be an important voice in the British libertarian movement (such as it is). Perodicticus 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Influential libertarian blog. If keep loses to delete, I'll go for merge. __earth 17:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand notable and well known in the political blog world. I agree with Capitalistroadster, there needs to be some sort of handy litmus for blogs. Anyone want to work on this with me? Jessamyn 17:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability assertion per the Guardian "Samizdata, by some measures the nation's most successful independent blog, claims around 15,000 different visitors a day;" [37]
  • Keep. Certainly notable. If size is the bother, and an {{expand}} tag. Turnstep 00:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic drivvle. -Incognito 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Samizdata highlighted as an important blog in the Guardian newspaper, Nov 17, 2005.--Simon.Pole 00:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very well-known blog. Rhobite 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to samizdat. Looks like yet another lame blog.  Grue  18:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very noteworthy blog. --Daniel11 01:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CapitalistRoadster. These blog nomiations seem to suggest a need for some sort of blog policy guidelines. Jacqui★ 19:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Samizdat. Failing consensus to do that, delete. Mentioned in the gaurdian, which has had some good coverage of blogs. However, in general blogs fail WP:V and WP:CITE, this looks to be no excpetion. Doesn't need to have it's own article. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm aware that this is probably useless, based upon the string of pure "votes" above, but oh well... This is not a vote. Unless you have some evidence of something's notability, please don't simply say "keep, notable". Provide some links, citations in major media, references in popular culture, arguments as to why you think it's notable, anything. Even if it is just "like foo said above". Otherwise what your simply saying is "keep because I've heard of it." A closer with a tiny bit of chutzpa would have a good argument for discounting any such opinion. brenneman(t)(c) 02:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean davey[edit]

Non-notable musicisan. Google search on name returns a plethora of results, no mention of his band. "Fragment of Infinity" return links to sermons and poems, "Sean Davey Fragment of Infinity" yields no results. Mylakovich 19:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge then delete the original articles. —Cleared as filed. 22:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultimate Ren & Stimpy Collection", "Seasons Three and A Half-ish", Seasons one and two[edit]

Information is far too trivial. If really warranted, information could be merged into Ren and Stimpy. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ren and Stimpy per nom. Please note that merging and moving pages do not need to come here under our policy. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I actually would prefer to delete them. Merging them is the backup option. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The precedent as far as I've seen is DVD collections are generally not given their own articles but rather discussed in the main show article. (Unless the DVD is an original production, perhaps). 23skidoo 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Jasmol 04:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but make sure you keep the list of episodes separate in a List of Ren & Stimpy episodes. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and let the editors at Ren and Stimpy fight over this; lucky them. Dottore So 11:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even after merging, the articles still need to be deleted. The title "Seasons one and two" could apply to any number of TV shows on DVD. I suppose the other two could remain as the titles seem to be unique and might be useful as search terms. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've merged all the articles as suggested. Now let's see about deleting the rest. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE THIS!


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. All keep votes are by obvious sock puppets. Although all of them have user names in the signatures, none of them was added by the actual registered user. User:Tirod only has contributions to the Shaamans article, and User:Valou and User:Eddy17 don't even exist. — JIP | Talk 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shaamans[edit]

I am from Réunion island and I can affirm that they are absolutely not reknowned. The article itself says that the band was created in 2004. By the way, the page has been deleted on French Wikipédia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thierry Caro (talk • contribs) 02:03, November 16, 2005

  • Delete. No evidence that they meet any of our music notability guidelines at WP:NMG. They have released one album but no evidence of it charting in a large or medium size country. Réunion has 763,000 people so that it probably doesn't qualify as a large or medium size country for the purpose of a charting album or tour. France obviously is but the deletion at the French Wikipedia would show that they are not very well-known there. Capitalistroadster 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The group hasn't even put biographical information about itself on its own web site [38]. I don't see any evidence that they satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 07:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster --anetode╔╝ 07:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thierry Caro has a small band which is unknown at reunion island, he doesn't like shaamans and don't want them to be known outside reunion and mauritius island even if they've already edited two albums with village titan. Does wikipedia exist to talk only about huge countries or to show the reality of our days. Even if reunion island count only 763,000 people, those people live, exist and have their own cultur. -- Tirod 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great band, cute drummer. -- Valou 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice Music. -- Eddy17 23:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that each of the three above "keep" votes are by anonymous IPs with contributions only to this AfD debate and User:Thierry Caro's user page. This is clearly a blatant case of sock puppeting. — JIP | Talk 22:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Please note that the same IP voted "Keep" twice. One vote should not be accounted for. Of course, no attention should be paid to its first sentence. My proposal is neutral and my contributions valuable, at least I hope so... Thierry Caro 19:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hall Monitor 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Kevin Andrew[edit]

Delete obvious hoax. TheMidnighters 04:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Two Google hits for Sir Kevin Andrew comprising Wikipedia logs and the St Louis Punk page [39] which isn't relevant. Obvious verifiability problems with this article according to Google. Capitalistroadster 06:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only unverifiable idiocy seperates this from a nn-bio speedy. --anetode╔╝ 08:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, he was 13 when he rescued 17 people during 9/11? And knighted 2 years later (one of the youngest to be knighted) without Google knowing? Yeah right! - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke. Carina22 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense. --Aurochs
  • Speedy delete as hoax. Turnstep 03:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 23:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeet McNullivich and some other articles created by User:216.26.131.177[edit]

These articles appear to be hoaxes. --Tasty monster|Talk 07:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperPage[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Websites. Alexa rank of 17,448. Nothing links to the page. Page is nothing more than a description of the site, without any explanation of why it might be notable. Maccoinnich 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great Alexa rank and if verified a pretty good userbase (site is currently offline). Include link to main site in skyscraper. Abstain on the article for now.- Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not just any site. They provide images to the Guinness World Record Book. - Mgm|(talk) 16:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah... so if its not notable just change it to make it so. throwing the baby out with the bathwater wont make it a better child. example of the relevance of this site is the guiness book of world records get their illustrations from it.
  • It shouldn't be removed. It meets the criteria for a notable website. It has a pretty good Alexa rank of 17,488, a forums with 10,000 members, and its diagrams have been used in many newspapers, and books, as well as online. The website is also significant because of its unique "diagrams". I have updated the article to reflect SkyscraperPage's significance, though I still need to edit it for easy reading.
  • Given its international presence, vast database, sheer number of users and Not-for-Profit attitude, I can't see why this entry should be removed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 17:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceworks[edit]

Not notable for an encylopedia. news.google.com has a single hit about it, which is quite irrelevant. 198.129.217.154 11:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splenic cancer[edit]

There is no splenic cancer per se. InvictaHOG 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made-up dicdef. PJM 12:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certain types of tumor can involve the spleen, but there is no need for a "splenic cancer" article. Obvious prank. —Brim 07:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism. Permanently ban the creator. jni 13:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spookhaus[edit]

nn vanity page. I've never heard of him... --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Musician doesn't appear to have an allmusic entry and article reeks of advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - paragraph starting with ALL CAPS and containing no linked words is a giveaway. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most horrifying thing about this is the grammar. Bearcat 05:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Preaky 14:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly-written article. Mindmatrix 16:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus - default to keep JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


St. Stephens High School, Hickory, North Carolina[edit]

NN, D ComCat 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator knows that this won't be deleted and should be reprimanded for wasting other wikipedian's time. CalJW 02:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your vote is to delete this article and yet, you complain that the nomination is a waste of time. I wonder if either your vote or your comments are misplaced? -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just a high school, doing the groovy things that high schools do. Much like the last and the next. Geogre 03:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Nominator has a history of frivolous nominations. Silensor 04:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a history of friviolous nominations is no reason to oppose a nomination. It's about the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vote is about the nomination, not the nominator. FYI...
    • There are approximately 6 billion human beings on earth. Conservatively, estimate that 1 billion of those are of primary or secondary school age. Again conservatively, estimate that only half of those actually attend school. If every school has 1000 students, then that presents 500,000 separate article candidates for the schools category alone. This number is equal to 60% of the total current English language articles and nearly seven times the entire Spanish language Wikipedia. In order to keep such a group updated it would take 685 editors each verifying and editing one article every day without holiday for two years. Durova 05:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We'd better start deleting all those American villages then, in case people start adding the 500,000 villages in India. Kappa 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good idea. A village of 250 people is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a census database. When would you like us to start? — Haeleth Talk 18:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cities, towns, and villages can be updated by bots. Not so with schools. Durova 03:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some very productive discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Schools. Please join us and help shape future policy regarding school articles. Denni ☯ 05:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to see here. Fine school, I'm sure, but not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is a good article and we have a consensus not to erase schools now Yuckfoo 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no known notable alumni. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Nlu 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dlyons493 Talk 08:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC) (out of seq keep vote to reiterate a point).[reply]
  • Merge with Hickory, North Carolina. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this appears to be one of the highest ranking schools within the state of North Carolina. Yamaguchi先生 09:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no notability asserted. Marskell 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "Today the school is rated in the top ten percentile of all schools within the state of North Carolina." Based on what? Test scores, graduation rate, number of students? This needs to be explained. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just one of the problems with school rankings. SAT score, graduation rate, retention, college placement, performance on state-wide exit exams, number of "well qualified teachers" (per No Child), teacher/student ratio, etc. are all ways to be "best" or "worst," which is one of many reasons that these claims really shouldn't figure in the debate over the worth of an article on a public high school. (I've lived in 3 states that were "48th in the nation" in public education.) Geogre 15:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another identikit article of no non-local interest. "The colors of the school are red, black, gray and white." Awesome! --Last Malthusian 11:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 11:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Catchpole 11:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid article with useful information. Carina22 12:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has history of AFD abuse, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 16:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Some very productive discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Schools. Please join us and help shape future policy regarding school articles. David D. (Talk) 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all high schools with 3+ sentence verifiable articles.Gateman1997 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gateman and Wikipedia talk:Schools. High schools are notable --Jaranda(watz sup) 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in an ideal parallel universe where Wikipedia is run on encyclopedic principles. Merge into a town or school district article in a slightly less ideal parallel universe where school inclusionists exist but are willing to listen to reason and consider compromise. Sadly, in this universe, U.S. high schools will inevitably be kept. — Haeleth Talk 18:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote withdrawn after reading the debates at Wikipedia talk:Schools, and apologies to the "keep" voters for my failure to assume good faith. No vote while I rethink my position on schools. And I strongly encourage all voters, whatever they have voted, to read Wikipedia talk:Schools#Summary, proposal if they have not done so already. — Haeleth Talk 20:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's well gone over. There is not and will be no consensus. You either find them notable or you don't. Marskell 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is of course the minority opinion. So far the majority has been coming to a very good consensus over at WP:SCH that is working for all sides. I encourage everyone to contribute.Gateman1997 03:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no listed notable graduates, nor any other particular indication of naotability given. DES (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consensus on keeping HS articles has seemingly been met with no consensus being the consensus. Keep this and all verifiable HSs until this is settled once and for all, likely in a steel-cage death match. Youngamerican 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth. Nandesuka 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a good reason is advanced not to. Turnstep 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator knows that this won't be deleted and that this nomination is a waste of time. But that doesn't mean there's consensus. Gazpacho 07:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep piling on keeps. —RaD Man (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pointless nomination. --Andylkl 17:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 [[User talk:DS1953|<sup>talk</sup>]] 02:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no claim of notability Pete.Hurd 18:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedied and protected as blatant copyvio by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STUT(Southern Taiwan University of Technology)[edit]

Probably copyvio. Just the tip of an horrible iceberg: Southern Taiwan University of Technology (STUT) and College of Digital Design have been deleted and protected. But Lugee and 59.113.17.202 are reposting them and other STUT stuff under different titles. Someone please sort out this mess. -- RHaworth 00:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and remove from AFD. There is no dispute regarding the notability of a university, this is not the appropriate forum to list copyright violations. Silensor 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has been speedied as blatant copyvio by Jeffrey O. Gustafson. RHaworth, if you see any more of these, and can verify that they are copyvios (Google searches usually work well), the appropriate thing is to follow the procedure described in WP:CSD A8, namely insert a tag in the article
{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}
and notify uploader on their talk page with:
{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~
Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • As noted, I have redeleted it. Users Lugee and Abcancer (likely the same person) have been indescriminantly copying material from the university's websites en masse, usualy with entirely unencycopedic titles. They have been warned, and asked to submit original material. I have re-unprotected Southern Taiwan University of Technology - hopefully someone will put up a real article. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That someone is me, consider it done. Silensor 06:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tairus[edit]

First person advertising for a company making artificial gems. Was speedied in August. The person who reposted it today vandalised a couple of my pages first so I am allowing them an AfD debate to show them that it is not just my opinion. (Of course you may all vote "cleanup" - which would be equally OK.) -- RHaworth 07:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obvious ad, non-notable. Jasmol 07:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing delete vote. Jasmol 15:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --User:Angr/talk 07:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Keep Anetode's rewrite. --User:Angr/talk 13:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively redirect to Vladimir Gurov since that article has been accepted. -- RHaworth 07:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Speedy if possible. --Nlu 07:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)In light of Anetode's revisions, neutral. --Nlu 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Clean up per WP:CORP. Tairus appears notable in the field of gemology, see mentions at Gemological Institute of America's quarterly: [40], [41] The company has also developed several gems that are sometimes prefixed with "Tairus" [42], meeting the genericization criterion. --anetode╔╝ 07:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just rewrote the article, it's no longer spammy in tone. --anetode╔╝ 08:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anetode's rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will only go as far as changing my vote to abstain and suggest that all votes above Anetode's comment should be ignored since it is a complete re-write. -- RHaworth 11:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring them is no longer needed, they've all been changed in light of the rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 20:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Just because a company posts its own Wiki entry doesn't mean that it lacks merit as an entry. Jtmichcock 02:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but spamming should be a big mark against it. --Nlu 06:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Takk skarru ha, mitt deilige bygdeland[edit]

Article consists of the lyrics of a Norwegian anthem. Nothing else. Delete as non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 11:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the article on the province, then delete redirect. Youngamerican 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please please please delete. This is not an anthem of any kind, and most likely a hoax. I live nearby Heggedal, and there are 0 google hits for "Franz Josef Weern". User:TonyStilling has been creating other hoax articles like Balle Klorin. Punkmorten 21:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Punkmortem. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarbert hobbit[edit]

Non-notable collection of films; '"tarbert hobbit"', 'tarbert "happy clan"' and '"Stuart Timmins" hobbit' all get zero google hits. - squibix 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 20:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to verify this info. Possible hoaz. Jtmichcock 03:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Robots[edit]

Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC --anetode╔╝ 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Man[edit]

This is a review of the film (as so admitted by original editor in edit summary) and therefore original research. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Ingoolemo Ingoolemo talk 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Crazy Chimp[edit]

Original research/hoax. Google turns up 41 mostly unrelated hits. Vandalism. Blackcap | talk 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete complete nonsense. get rid of it.--Alhutch 22:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still speedy, but under category G3 per Capitalistroadster.--Alhutch 03:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN - patent nonsense. --Aurochs
    • While this should be deleted, it is not patent nonsense, which is a very stringent category here. It is hard to read, but it is coherent, sensical, and legible, and thus does not meet WP:PN. I share your sentiments, though. Blackcap | talk 23:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is "An imaginary chimp turned into crazy bouncy balls, when we bought one at jakes pizza" sensical or coherent by any definition of the words? --Aurochs
        • It's completely coherent. I can understand perfectly what's being said, which is that a chimp, which he had, turned into balls. He had bought the chimp at jakes pizza. The fact that the content isn't paticularly intelligent doesn't make it patent nonsense, as we define it. On WP, patent nonsense is either utterly impossible to understand content (such as random keys being pressed, such as k,asdhjvbsdhb aldshbld lHDb lahdcblbi&&****) or "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." I can easily make sense out of this article. It is not confused or incoherent, but it violates WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and is possibly vandalism. I would like pages like this to be speediable, but currently, they are not. Essays must go on AfD. Blackcap | talk 23:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apparently, our interpretations of "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" are different. Oh, well. --Aurochs
            • Yeah. That sentence really needs to be rewritten, it's far too open to interpretation. The only thing that helps quantify it is the semi-lengthy list of what patent nonsense isn't, which includes fictionary story material and incompetent/immature material. Blackcap | talk 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism under category G3. Capitalistroadster 23:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. That seems reasonable. If you feel like putting the tag up for that, I have no objections. Blackcap | talk 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Part of this article is advertisement for a game and the rest is better forgotten. JoJan 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:G1. My interpretation of the second category for patent nonsense, "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it" is the same as Auroch's, and this article definitely qualifies. MCB 22:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Knights of Disorder[edit]

If this was about one person, I'd have speedied it. But, noo, it's a group, so we have to go through this. NN. Delete as quickly as possible. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What policy of Wikipedia does it violate to merit deletion? I've read the guidelines, and I can't find one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaich (talk • contribs)
    • Hi, Elaich. I apologize for the tone of the nominator; perhaps he's working a little too hard and has forgotten to assume good faith. The issue he raises is that the article doesn't establish notability of the Knights of Disorder, and he implies that it's a vanity article. The article asserts that they are legendary, but we'd need proof of that. Which brings me to the more important criterion: that the material be verifiable. For anything you add in Wikipedia, somebody else should be able to go to the library to confirm it. To aid them in that, you should include citations. I hope that helps! Note that you're encouraged to improve the article during the AfD process; if you can clean it up in short order, the article will be kept. Regards, --William Pietri 06:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally unverifiable as per verifiability. Not one Google hit for "The Knights of Disorder" Lexington see [43]. As well, they are totally non-notable. These teenage hoodlums once climbed the roof of their high school and spray painted the roof. Teenage delinquency doesn't get any worse than that - it puts the Crips and Bloods in the shade. Capitalistroadster 06:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless material is verified. --William Pietri 06:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Jasmol 07:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and vanity. Ifnord 15:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This would be included under my proposed Expansion of A7. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Definitely should be speedy-able. Turnstep 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Marshall Child Murder of 1997[edit]

Tragic, but not encyclopaedic. Pilatus 00:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree as to tragedy, but does not belong. Jtmichcock 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The text smells like a copyvio to me - at the very least, it's probably been cut and pasted from somewhere else, with or without permission. Whether this belongs in an encyclopedia or not is not really covered by this article at all. How much notoriety did the case get? Did it have any wider effects? For example, did any laws change? Did police procedure change? Did any charities or movements get inspired by this murder? Was it used as the basis for a work of fiction? All of this would help. A murder on its own is not enough to get in the encyclopedia, but if it was a notable case, then it might. Matthew Brown 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, Google gets very few results for this case. For such a recent murder to be worth an article, one would expect more press coverage than this ... Matthew Brown 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The press coverage was nowhere near the Soham murders. Can't remember it hitting the headlines anywhere. Pilatus 02:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A particular crime without a wider set of effects or celebrity. It is a horrible thing, and it's a sign perhaps of the wickedness of our Malthusian age that it's not with serious effects. More remember "Wragg is in custody" than Wragg. (A woman who murdered her infant.) Geogre 03:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel bad defending a child murderer on this, but the article is riddled with POV language and appears to be written to disparage its subject. I'll drop a note on the British noticeboard to get some feedback. Perhaps coverage was better offline at that time. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a school essay about a crime that is more common than one would expect. It's too long than any article on this subject deserves, and did not have any effect on British legislation, unlike the Soham murders or Jamie Bulger's murder. All in all, it's a crap article about a non-notable incident. -- Francs2000 10:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maccoinnich 10:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - having read the article I vaguely recall the case, but it had no effect on the legal system and therefore was not particularly notable. In any case, it reads like it's been lifted from some other source, somewhere. -- Arwel (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (13/4).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman Hausherr[edit]

Not notable, WP:Autobiography Dbchip 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Vote withdrawn. No longer have strong feelings in either direction after details added. --Lucent 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) --Lucent 08:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This guy is a notable critic of Scientology in Germany. If we keep Barbara Schwarz we must keep him. Pilatus 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. We should delete the Schwarz article too. ComCat 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was actually undecided but Pilatus's argument is very convincing; Tilman Hausherr is far more notable than Barbara Schwarz and two separate AfDs both resulted in the keeping of that article. I have, however, added more information about what specifically makes Hausherr notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye. Barbara Schwarz is a poor comparison. Let's say Tilman is the German equivalent to Dave Touretzky. Pilatus 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly does "She was the president of the German branch of the Church of Scientology from August 3, 1983 until July 10, 1984." make Barbara Schwartz not notable? President of the Church of Scientology makes her a important figure in that religion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds better than it is - "president" in Scientology is in fact a public speaker, not an executive. Shows up in talk shows, etc., is usually well drilled for that task, but has nothing to say within the organization. And president of the German Branch of Scientology in 1983 - that was the churches of Hamburg and Munich, and two smaller ones in Berlin and Düsseldorf, all of them managed by the management org in Copenhagen (by daily phone calls) - not by Barbara Schwartz or any German president. Actually, I could recall the names of the Executive Directors of the local churches, but I can't remember having heard of Barbara Schwartz in that time (I was on staff in Copenhagen at the time). Irmgard 10:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glorified PR chief, eh? Whereas Tilman has spoken out often enough to be registered as an Enemy of the CoS on their RFW site, which accuses him of "religious intolerance" in an incredibly trumped-up manner. 206.114.20.121 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Barbara Schwarz only marginally rates an article for her CoS work. She really' gets one for her notable achievements in the area of the Freedom of Information Act - where a judge told her she'd have to pay for each request from now on, and the ACLU notably didn't shit - David Gerard 08:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it does sound like an article on the web site, or the German anti-scientology movement, would be a better article than this one. However, if we can address more of his anti-Scientology activism or whatever, this might be worthwhile. Matthew Brown 02:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the article proves him notable enough. - splot 03:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but move the link to Hausherr's website to the Scientology article. Reyk 05:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Notable critic of Scientology, established by his appearance on the Scientology-sponsored website Religious Freedom Watch. Edwardian 06:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please this person is a notable critic really we can not erase this Yuckfoo 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edwardian and Pilatus. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edwardian and Pilatus. Irmgard 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant critic of Scientology. Squiddy 14:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per Edwardian/Pilatus/Squiddy. 206.114.20.121 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course :-) There are 7 other Wikipedia articles that mention this entry. Tilman 19:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
  • Keep. Gateman1997 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NNN. Turnstep 00:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 14:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - speaking as a subject area expert, he rates an article just for the Scientology stuff. He's also the author of the fairly popular Xenu's Link Sleuth weblink checker - David Gerard 08:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totohominisexcitodiablolusfructusphobia[edit]

Dictionary definition, move to Wiktionary and delete. --Aurochs

  • Delete, no... delete... don't move anywhere... unless it's shown to be notable or actually a used word and not something made up. gren グレン 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as joke or hoax, without move. Sliggy 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism. PJM 01:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let no man eat of this fruit. Fg2 02:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 03:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The text of the article may not be patent nonsense, but the title most definitely is. ♠DanMS 05:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. The content was "the fear of all mankind waking up as a demonic fruit". That has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, and qualifies as patent nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tough guy[edit]

I do not understand what this article is about, why it belongs to the section "Endurance sports" or "Literary stubs" as I find nothing literary about it. Manik Raina 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article covers three separate things, so should be three articles and a disambig page. The stock character part is worth keeping (and expanding), the endurance event and internet slang sections refer to separate things, and should not be on this page - neither is important enough for a separate article, IMHO. Squiddy 16:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I fail to see the sense of the "Literary" stub (but somebody may- let him speak up now), I see no reason to dump any of the content, not even the literary slang I never heard about- one should never move to eliminate something because it fails to appeal to you, nor even if ou think must readers wouldn't care or it- an encyclopaedia is not meant to be readable 'from cover to cover' but as its etymology suggests to cover as much ground as reasonably possible (and our medium has the crucial advantage that it is not limited by the size and costs of every hard copy, unlike printed lexica). In the case of the competition, the very facts that an event sui generis persists for years and is made to subject of a lenghty foreign TV program indicate there clearly are people that can be interested in it. As I agree neither section is large enough to need a separate page (nor the whole page too long to read trough quickly), I wouldn't argue (yet?) for disambiguation either Fastifex 10:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Unverifiable, not noteworthy. Wikipedia is no dictionary either. Bloom 42 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete as per Bloom Ajax11 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ∾ The article smells like a front that exists merely to provide a backhanded introduction to the Charlie Wenzel attack page. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph is a gem "Example: Charlie Wenzel received much notoriety in 2005 for a dispute on an internet message board. This dispute became so well publicized it spawned several websites, a wikipedia entry, t-shirts and several slang terms". Manik Raina 16:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody seems to find any sense in the 'literary' stub, and lack of animo for significant elaboration requires no sturring, I simply removed the mystery stub. However I read absolutely nothing that compells removing either of these items- if people delete anything they can't be bothered with, me demote Wikipedia from an alternative alongside professional encyclopaedias, abdicating the extras without a hope ever to approach the qualitative quasi-guarantee of a scientificaly edited one. Our time is far better spend contributing content, not bitching about every little bit that wouldn't make Britannica, which happily already exists (how absurd most articles from its free 1911 edition are still not being used, that alone would be superior occupational therapy for years!) Arcarius 18:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Tumwater, Washington. - Mailer Diablo 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tumwater[edit]

Delightfully poetic, but page at Tumwater, Washington already covers this and more. Alcon San Croix 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tumwater, Washington. If there are any other Tumwaters of consequence, it could be redirected a disambiguation but I don't think that there are. Capitalistroadster 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as Capitalistroadster suggests. Geogre 03:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but can we keep a bit of the poetry? ;) - splot 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tumwater, Washington per Capitalistroadster. Yamaguchi先生 09:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, unlikely to need redirect, but let's keep the option open. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty_Major[edit]

Self-promotion and vanity Timecop 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who? What? --Depakote 12:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, Cruft, Not Notable. We need a template for delete votes of blogs - they all seem to be the same. Adamn 12:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nowhere near being notable. Skrewler 12:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I occasionally smoke in non-smoking areas, especially when it's cold outside. Are me and my blog notable? I am a blogger btw. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Femmina 15:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with objection to nominator's vendetta against all blogs without consideration of each article on its own merits. Turnstep 03:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No vendetta aginst "all blogs". I fact-check and verify all links in articles that I put up for AFD. If this blog is too obscure and the article provides nothing more than a link to a blog, it should be deleted. See User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs for more things that have been placed on AFD. --Timecop 06:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless blog-cruft. -Incognito 14:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Preaky 06:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncompromisimg[edit]

Dicdef. Already in Wiktionary. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki as appropriate. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already in Wiki Dictionary.Gateman1997 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is tomas wallace's definition
    • And who is Thomas Wallace? And it is still a dicdef.Gateman1997 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dicdef. Also riddled with errors- admittedly they could be fixed, but why, when it's already at Wiki Dictionary? Reyk 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well delete it. It’s misspelled anyway. ♠DanMS 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Uncompromisimg" gets 8 real google hits, so NN. BD2412 T 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ha, I didn't even notice it was misspelled until you pointed it out. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN dictdef, delete. ComCat 02:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons cited above. - splot 03:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is patent nonsense. I had to restrain myself from blanking it out. Logophile 13:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete....Ummm *smile shake's head, laughs, and utters one resounding word....delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth Park[edit]

University accomodation block. These have to be notable to be included. This one aint and is a badly formatted article full of student cruft. -- RHaworth 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is also a redirect at Withworth Park. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as reposted content that has been deleted before. -- Francs2000 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN student residence Denni ☯ 05:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - campuscruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but major cleanup, or otherwise merge and redirect salvageable material to the university they're part of. I would expect triangular houses to be a landmark in the city. (moved buried image to top). - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed my keep in favor of merging per Geogre. - Mgm|(talk) 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Manchester University#Student life. Failing that, delete. Geogre 10:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn hall --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge if possible. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the article makes a claim of architectural notability, but it's not one I'm qualified to judge. If the buildings really are at all famous, keep this; if not, merge per Geogre. — Haeleth Talk 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ytmnd soundtrack[edit]

It pains me to have to vote against another YTMND page, and especially about such a great topic, but this doesn't really have any use on Wikipedia. I welcome Max to create his own Wiki (which I think would be awesome) or perhaps to host it on Wikicities. One issue I have with this article, however, is that the information contained in it could easily be found via a link from List of YTMND fads. Mysekurity 06:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any and all YTMND-cruft to YTMND or the list of fads thereof. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this mannowdogcruft. NatusRoma 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Freakofnurture. Jasmol 07:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable album with no real distributor, merging would only lend credence to this unverifiable cruft. --anetode╔╝ 07:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete variant of fanfiction. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While I do believe it should be deleted, I believe we must go about this a bit more respectfully, as the author e-mailed me, and explained how he was willing to reconsider, but here are his thoughts, taken verbatim from his e-mail to me, on the matter:
In response to your message to me upon the nomination of Ytmnd soundtrack for deletion, I had originally posted it as it's own article because it was not a part of YTMND or a YTMND fad, per-se. I do see your point in deleting it though, as it is a borderline vanity article (i helped distribute it, therefore i do have a bit of a vested interest in it). Would you say this information does not belong on wikipedia at all, or should i move it to the ytmnd fads article that you had highlited for me?

-Mysekurity 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - YTMND the site is notable. Its fads are borderline notable. This, however, really isn't that notable. --Shadow Hog 12:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Shadow Hog. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, YTMND-related. --DJH47 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mysekurity. Such compilations has little use outside YTMND community and, as mentioned, an ytmnd-soundtrack.ytmnd.com external link was provided in List of YTMND fads (Although a forums.ytmnd.com/showthread.php?t=40963 direct link to the soundtrack's forum thread is preferable, it's inaccessible to unregistered users). ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_16&oldid=1081093067"