Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 10 October 12 >

Purge server cache

October 11[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 DELETED as COPYVIO. -Splashtalk 02:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Ad, not encyclopediac[reply]

  • It's a copyvio. I'll go list it at WP:CP instead of completing this afd. (Please see the instructions at the bottom of WP:AFD.) —Cryptic (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This article is created in first-person point of view; the article has little to do with the title of the article. IanManka 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenite[edit]

Hoax or possibly an obscure fictional reference. No relevant Google hits. Ilmari Karonen 15:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn from City of Heroes [1] Dlyons493 Talk 15:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to list of fictional substances or whatever that page is called. Trollderella 16:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn non-existent substance CLW 16:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Substance doesn't even exist in City of Heroes canon, it's a player-invented chemical used as part of their character(Psykids) origin. So not only is it fancruft, it's also vanity. Nezu Chiza 18:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Nezu. Kappa 23:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified --redstucco 08:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Brown[edit]

Non-notable bio, vanity. Brown is a high school graduate of 2003, has his only novel published the same year. Novel appears to be published by a vanity press (Authorhouse or 1st Books), Amazon sales rank #2,554,188 in Books with two suspiciously effusive 5-star user reviews. I will also put the novel Alexander Browns: Sweet Dreams on AFD shortly. He may have great things in his future, but it isn't yet time for his encyclopedia bio. Quale 03:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity puff piece for a author whose work is only published by a vanity press. Insufficient notability, and Wikipedia isn't a promotional tool. Average Earthman 11:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious vanity entry. --Calton | Talk 11:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly looks like vanity, but if indeed it is penned by Brown himself, he's not actually very good at writing... CLW
  • Delete. Vanity author. Anybody can publish anything on Amazon. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Whatever You Wish. For Future Reference I personally am not Alexander Brown, nor do I know him personally, However he is a regionally well-known writer. I apologize if my bio for him it appeared to be vain, but I fixed it to where it appears much as a stub, but I didn't have much to go on whlie writing the bio. I guess that is why I created the article here so maybe he will be a little well known and maybe if he so chooses can disclose more info about his life, I do recomend you at least read his novel beofre deleteing it, and then maybe you will see why it actually deserves to be listed, even as it is just a regionally well-known book. And I love the way you insult other users in these little forums, perhaps you should actually think before posting little rude comments. But You know what, I'll delete it myself... Go Fuck yourselves. southernrequiem | 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Above comment by User: On File who blanked the page in question and is now trolling by listing perfectly good articles to Afd. jni 16:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. I created the article out of respect for the Author, and for love of the book. After seeing the mess that was created on this site, by someone using my name I have taken full-reponsibility for their actions. I apologize for their apparent immaturity, I also apologize for my apparent in-ability to meet the high standards needed for this site, so on behalf of myself I accept if you must delete my article, but I wish you would not. Southernrequiem | Talk , 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Browns: Sweet Dreams[edit]

Non-notable novel, probable vanity press. First novel from a high school senior or recent grad appears to be published by a vanity press (Authorhouse or 1st Books), Amazon sales rank #2,554,188 in Books with two suspiciously effusive 5-star user reviews. I have also nominated the author, Alexander Brown, immediately prior to this entry. Quale 03:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AlexQ[edit]

Musician with no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines. AMG has never heard of him, or the band Pain Hertz. Pain Hertz had an article also, but since they were related and both short, I merged the content into here. Friday (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, and if AMG hasn't heard of him, then he's really nn. PacknCanes 22:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. is linked on the songs from new york page in wiki, for instance. why delete just because not submitted to the allmusic site?
    • Because AMG essentially serves as the Google test for music articles. And please sign your nominations. PacknCanes 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete DES (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alister Douglas Gould[edit]

Delete this is a (shorter) duplicate of Benjamin Apthorp Gould under an incorrect name. And I remember a similar article being deleted before. --Etacar11 02:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Etacar11; judging from her user page, she should know! CLW 15:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I don't really know much about B.A. Gould :) but a websearch reveals stuff on him on the National Academies website, and there's an award named after him. A.D. Gould is all wiki mirrors. In fact the confused person who wrote this article lists a wiki mirror as an "external link". I think this is the second time they've created the article. Unless there's evidence that he used this as an alias... ;), it should definitely go with no redirect. --Etacar11 17:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Guards[edit]

Unencyclopedic. It has been speedy deleted already but author keeps recreating. 202.156.6.54 06:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and protect from recreation. -x42bn6 Talk 07:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 09:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect from recreation, articles under this name have deleted four times already. -- Kjkolb 11:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense CLW 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and Protect: doesn't even make sense. If it's been recreated, protect it. Jesse 18:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. *drew 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Z magazine-cruft. More leftist nonsense/screeching. Klonimus 09:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. DES (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Volunteer Forces in The War With Spain[edit]

This is a word for word copy of source material obtained from the U.S. Army Center for Military History. The author of this article freely admits this in the opening paragraph and then declares that the article itself is "copyrighted". A clear case of "What Wikipedia is Not" in that the article is a collection of source material.-Husnock 06:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • FOLLOWUP: According to the user who created the article, this has been moved to Wikisource. The user attempted to remove the VFD notice and blank the article, but I restored the page for the purpose of finishing the VFD and having an admin properly remove the article. -Husnock 17:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the notice on the bottom, I'm not sure if it's copyrighted. However, a text dump of source material like this is inappropriate. This issue is a chronic problem for this user and he has not followed the advice of other editors regarding copyright and text dumping, even after repeated warnings. -- Kjkolb 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inappropriate as per Kjkolb. (Vote by CLW)
  • Keep and re-work the text. The topic itself is appropriate, and it is not a clear copyright violation. Trollderella 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not copy-vio (US Gov't work, and circa 1898), but primary source material. Wikipedia is not a document repository. Maybe Transwiki-able, though. Xoloz 16:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Xoloz. MCB 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki if possible. Youngamerican 17:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated in the followup, it's already on wikisource. -Haon 14:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andela Hrg[edit]

One of 100,000 people killed in a concentration camp in Croatia. Actually the article says she's believed to be alive, but that's a hell of a long time to be missing. Wikipedia is not a memorial. R. fiend 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Virtually everything on the web about her is based on a single BBC News article published in 2001 [2]. From the context I assume that Hrg was alive and not missing after World War II, but the writer of the Wikipedia article does not know what happened to her after 2001. Nevertheless, delete as notability has not been established. --Metropolitan90 02:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Alex.tan 04:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.Jesse 14:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ariamedia[edit]

The page reads just like a corporate "who we are" page, down to the use of personal pronouns like "we." Since it contains text as well as purely external links, I don't think it meets CSD A3. Pgengler 19:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arija wiki[edit]

I believe that this wiki community is not notable. It was founded in 2003, but it still has only 77 registered users. The recent changes don't look very live, there isn't even activity every day. A byreaucrat of Arija Wiki created article about it in Wikipedia. When I searched Google for "Arija Wiki", I could only find Wikipedia mirrors. "Arija.org" given even more boring results, another wiki has a link to the site in question, but it is too easy to edit wiki pages. This article should be deleted. -Hapsiainen 22:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arija. (otherwise delete) --Apyule 07:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete as per Apyule. Low alexa rank (1,830,123) [3], although I don't know what alexa data means for non-english websites. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so nn it's not funny.  Grue  19:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avant-garde comics[edit]

Simply not notable comic WP:COMIC. feydey 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The strips are in a LiveJournal. End of story.--CastAStone 23:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like vanity to me -Abe Dashiell 14:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's also only one comic so far. -- SCZenz 14:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While having the strips in a livejournal is no reason to vote delete, the fact that there is only one merits it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B-Sides, Ace of Base[edit]

I don't feel this warrants an article - individual singles might be notable enough for articles, and B-side information might sit well on those articles, but this is less notable in my opinion and verges on the crufty. Delete CLW 14:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and excuse me for not keeping up with the scene, but what the heck is "29a"? — JIP | Talk 18:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benny/29a[edit]

nn vanity related to 29a . Vsmith 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/29a -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BFFAE[edit]

unencyclopedaic nn acronym Dlyons493 Talk 22:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (I honestly don't see where I can merge this thing before deletion, if anyone wants I can userfy it for you if you want to merge) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Illini Comeback[edit]

Oh come on. Not an encyclopedia article. Garbage. R. fiend 17:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete DES (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelight[edit]

not notable--MONGO 03:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, last half of the article consists entirely of personal attacks and POV rants. --Clay Collier 11:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with reservations: the website in question could be considered notable, as part of the rave history of the midwest and North America in general, however, this particular encyclopedia entry is useless. If a rewrite is plausible, or some formatting of whatever content is here, this could be a useful article, otherwise, delete. Jesse 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Clay Collier CLW 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable forum with Alexa rank of 96,867. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending a rewrite into a valid article, then change vote to keep. Klonimus 09:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bonta[edit]

Smells like vanity. Sarge Baldy 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing but vanity.--Alhutch 16:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 16:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would personally think it's a speedy candidate on the basis of no asseriton of notability. The Land 18:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean English[edit]

No Google hits for "Boolean English" besides Wikipedia and mirrors. I'm pretty sure this is simply made up. dbenbenn | talk 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bostock and Pollitt[edit]

This is just an ad. R. fiend 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this company does get a few google hits, but i think this qualifies as an ad.--Alhutch 16:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad, nn CLW 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnyhug[edit]

del. A dicdef, of dubious notability. mikka (t) 18:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to bunny hug. mikka (t) 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Slangdef and as far as I can determine from Googling the term, it is not verifiable anyway.--Isotope23 19:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable local slang. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep i was for del, but as I had heard the phrase in england thought id see if it agreed - and was suprised to learn that it did. more to the point that it should be of saskatchewan origin is of unexpected note to me. so i cant agree with it just being slangdef, the location is important - thats not to say that the page is up to much, but then what else is there to say about such a small subject? DavidP 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you really be sure that the origin didn't go the other way, i.e. that you guys originated it and Saskatchewan picked up on it? Or that it's not just a case of two groups coming up with the same slang term independently of each other? Bearcat 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how "local" it can be if it was mentioned in the Broadway song "All That Jazz." [4]. Create new article based on old, non-regional meaning... whatever it is. I'm not sure, yet. Redirect bunny hug, which has the correct meaning. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slangdef. Bearcat 05:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe redirect to Bunny hug. Zhatt 18:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term bunny hug (not bunnyhug) appears in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. ["noun Cdn (Sask.) a hooded sweatshirt."]. So put it in wiktionary, or redirect it to hoody, but there's no encyclopedia article to be written here. —Michael Z. 2005-10-14 02:01 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge College Networks[edit]

Please note that a related page Cambridge University Computer Network is also being considered for deletion


  • Delete This article seems to have been produced by a Cambridge University computing lab assistant, who wanted to provide a guide for new students and visitors to the specific policies and technical details for the computer networks at different Cambridge University colleges.

I think this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia - this information belongs on the cambridge computer lab website. Wikipedia is not an universal bulletin board (imagine if every university decided to put information about their specific policies on networks, accommodation, catering, discipline etc. on wikipedia). I don't even think this information belongs with the Cambridge University wikipedia entry. Bwithh 18:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The information about college networking policies is useful and much of it is not available elsewhere. It is as important to many people, for instance, as the fact that colleges have dining facilities, or that large numbers of people use bicycles for transportation in the city. Without having it mentioned on Wikipedia, however, most of these people wouldn't even realize that there might be anything to be concerned about until they have moved to Cambridge and enrolled in a college or department whose policies they find unacceptable. They will be stuck at this point since there is no way to get DSL in college housing or departmental offices. As I've written it, the page is incomplete, but I think it should be fleshed out and not deleted. I am a prospective student, not a lab assistant. A5 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create a web site containing the information chowells 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a user manual for the kids from Cambridge. Are we going to see the sherry list at High Table dinners next? Pilatus 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a persistant misunderstanding that this information is provided for people already at Cambridge. While it may be useful for students, it is mostly aimed at prospective students who will want to know what they are getting into. Freedom to use the internet, wired or wirelessly, to share it with visiting friends, etc. is a little more important than sherry. A5 19:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the sherry.--Calton | Talk 00:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps general information about college network policies is worth an article, but this belongs on a Cambridge site, whether it is for current or prospective students. Pgengler 19:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless in the context of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a manual, as well as not being a lot of other things chowells 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't Cambridge has a webpage for this information, to be updated by officials? No doubt of the good intention to serve prospective students, but the content isn't appropriate for wikipedia. Please transfer the content to a Cambridge website, and create an external link in University of Cambridge instead. --Vsion 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That the information is useful doesn't make it encyclopedic. CUDES tried to collect such information a few years ago, it could be reactivated and collect it again, or CUSU could provide such information for prospective students, or both, but in any case an encyclopedia isn't the right host. Joseph Myers 19:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia isn't a hosting solution. Suggest the author open a MySpace or Blogspot account.--Isotope23 20:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a webspace provider. PacknCanes 22:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creator should speak to CUSU though, they may well be interested and help make this info available. Wikipedia just isn't the place for it. the wub "?!" 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too localized info. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic information which belongs on University of Cambridge website. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable detailed techical info that may change at any moment. mikka (t) 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE all three articles. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catamarancharters[edit]

plus Catamaran vacations and Sailing vacation.

Thinly veiled advertising posted by 205.197.3.211 and 66.176.167.128 to promote [5], [6] and [7] which are all one company. Probably everything they say is already covered in Catamaran, Multihull and other sailing articles, or is not encyclopedic. -- RHaworth 21:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the lot as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 03:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as advertising. --Apyule 07:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catfish show[edit]

Here we have a podcast with no proof that anyone actually watches it. Pilatus 15:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you prove that it's popular it will be kept. This is not the "Directory of random podcasts". Pilatus 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiably assertions of notability added CLW 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Podcruft. Adam Curry's are listed because he is a pioneer of podcasting and therefore notable. Catfish show is yet another vanity podcast of little notability. Even if it was one of the first ones, it doesn't predate The Daily Source Code. Podcasts are like Blogs: inherently non-notable unless the person(s) producing them are notable or there is something that sets them apart from the thousands of other crufty casts out there.--Isotope23 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. Nice to meet some genuinely nice people online...;-) I'm new to Wikipedia & thought I'd write about something nice- I thought Wikipedia wanted to include everything it could but obviously I had the wrong idea & I must apologise if I got things wrong. I'm saddened by the hostility I've come across here It doesn't matter if it's deleted it or not, but why pick holes in other people's entries? Feel free to delete it. 81.79.251.53 17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)ds81.79.251.53 17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia on any topic, but are very strongly advised not to contribute material about themselves or their own enterprises. If it's famous someone else will put it in Wikipedia. Have a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The Land 18:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't about myself or my own enterprises! Comprende??Boy do you guys have fun criticising- guess it's easier than being nice! Point taken, so let's leave it for Wikkipedia to remove now, hey? 81.76.65.36 19:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was to lay out the reasons I don't believe Catfish show merits inclusion in wikipeida (if you were refering to my comments). I'm sorry if my comments came across as hostile. They were in no way an attack on you personally, 81.79.251.53. I just happen to think there is a strong case for not including most podcasts in wikipedia. I hope you create a username and continue to edit and participate here.--Isotope23 20:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable podcast with Alexa rank of 3,975,632. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe create a List of Podcasts? See Category:Podcasts. Zhatt 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept. However, if anyone wants to Merge the article into USF I think that would be ok too. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Gallery[edit]

I walk past this at least twice a week. It is a small, one room exhibition space in the university's student union. It's a fun place to visit but it's completely non-notable and non-encyclopedic. At best it deserves a brief mention in the USF article after far more notable exhibition spaces, like our contemporary art museum and our printing studio which have hosted notable artists like Roy Lichtenstein. Gamaliel 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge into that other article. Why nominate something for deletion when it's an obvious merge? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the USF article doesn't need three paragraphs of information on a one room gallery. Gamaliel 21:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USF and merge an appropriate amount into the latter. Dlyons493 Talk 21:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright, unless you're sure that there isn't another "Centre Gallery' elsewhere in the world. (Also, the phrase "the only fully student run, non-profit, exhibition space in the state of Florida" proves that if you draw the boundaries narrowly enough, you can insert the qualifier "only" anywhere you like.) Let the creator add the info to the USF article if anyone is worried by GFDL issues. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into USF article. - Sensor 03:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic formula orkestra[edit]

Local band. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. No allmusic.com entry. Delete. Gamaliel

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clan AoME[edit]

Delete - Non-notable gaming clan. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn CLW 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clancruft. Al 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - I am willing to do whatever change is required to keep the article. M3taphysical 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. clancruft. feydey 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn gaming clan, free webhost. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (Even counting the stricked out comment [a joke?] its the usual threshold for consensus) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanest River in America[edit]

Vanity article about a non-notable comedy troupe. A Google search for ""Cleanest River in America" comedy" comes up nine total hits, all of which are just from schedules at places they have appeared. --Fastfission 21:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War 2[edit]

Delete Original research (if even that and not just some non-notable editorial). PhilipO 21:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The current article is exactly as PhilipO describes it, but I'm not sure that no article could be used here. "Cold War 2" and "Cold War II" have both been quite often used in two ways that I know of. The first is to talk about the Cold War during the Reagan years (that is, it is used to periodize the Cold War into Cold War, Detente, Cold War II) (Paul Edward's book The Closed World from MIT Press does this quite a lot). The second use is somewhat as the original author implies — as a way of saying that the war on terror is the second Cold War. I think an article with this title could be made into something encyclopedic if it was about these two terms and what they are trying to imply in terms of periodization and history (along the lines, perhaps, of World War III), but the current text of the article is worth deleting. Just my two cents. --Fastfission 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent points by Fastfission -- agree that the current content should be Deleted unless rewritten along the lines presented above. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This thing should have "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" stamped in bright red letters over it. If someone, if possible, wants to write a verifiable and sourced distillation of this phrase being actually used, let them do so after the rubble of this article has been cleared away. --Calton | Talk 00:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 03:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better covered by war on terror, and economic articles or india/china, and mil articles on china. Zotel - the Stub Maker 01:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just speculation. --SuperDude 19:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Zone[edit]

This website doesn't appear notable, and it has pop-ups and other prominent ads. It was created by a user whose only other contributions were adding www.comedy-zone.net as an external link to other articles. Wmahan. 16:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sounds like we've got a spammer in the works. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SPAM RAUS! The Land 18:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you think it's spam, by all means delete it. It is however a notable site and I used it to practise my first edits thinking that it wouldn't be perceived that way as it's a reputable comedy site in an area that got loads of ad laden sites in it (there's only one pop-up on the entire 5,000 page plus site by the way). I certainly won't be adding any external links to any edits I do again here, that's for sure! Tuneless | Talk 17:30, 13 October 2005 (GMT)
    Your efforts are apprecated. I wasn't implying that there's anything wrong with the site, just that it didn't seem particularly notable. As you pointed out, there does seem to be a lot of spam on comedy-related pages. And as I just explained on your talk page, it's certainly nothing personal. -- Wmahan. 22:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I appeared a little defensive in my response, I've read up on lots of editing info now (that perhaps I should have read before I started editing, I know - but we all know what men and instruction manuals are like don't we!), and can understand why my edits might well be construed as spam. I'd like to reiterate though that any notion of intentional spamming is simply not the case. The Comedy Zone is a very popular site and doesn't need to use spamming tactics to get more visitors, so I'd rather that any edits that are questionable in this area are simply deleted (including this page, although I personally believe that it's valid), as I've no desire to be even remotely associated with such nefarious activities. Tuneless | Talk 10:25, 14 October 2005 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge with NYU School of Law Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D`Agostino Residence Hall[edit]

Non-notable dorm at New York University School of Law. Delete or merge into NYU School of Law or NYU residence halls (I don't know if the ones for the law school should be separate for some reason). -- Kjkolb 12:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted, vanity. After an hour or two of Wikibooks spring-cleaning I'm in a no-bullshit mood, and a 1:1-scale photo staring me in the face is clear proof of vanity. I doubt we have that hi-res a photo of Jimbo or the Queen, and they're demoted to thumbnail status. EDIT: oh, I almost forgot my trademark afd-closure line...: disagree with my boldness? Bite me. GarrettTalk 11:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. Robbins[edit]

Vanity, contributed by Danrobbins. Probably a speedy, but has had eyeballs before, judging from the history at Daniel Robbins, so might as well get a second opinion here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanadu. —Cryptic (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Merely working for a major company does not make one notable. Putting a very large picture of oneself on a Wikipedia article does suggest a certain amount of vanity is involved. Average Earthman 09:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but be easy on him. You can't expect the cathedral guys to know how to behave in the bazaar. :) Qaz (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly a speedy delete as there's no credible assertion of notability. -- Kjkolb 11:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Wings[edit]

Delete Non notable novel. Mylakovich 17:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it is not published, and therefore not verifiable by reasonable means. Trollderella 17:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unpublished, so delete but good luck to the authors in dealing with themes of sadism and disability in an original, unexploitative manner. The Land 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unpublished.--Isotope23 19:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Windsor[edit]

This guy is not in imdb, and I can't find any information on this actor. I suspect a hoax, or at the very least, non-notable vanity. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DropDeadGorgias. -- Kjkolb 04:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what's wrong with this nomination's edit link? It goes to a locked template page. -- Kjkolb 06:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Unanimous keep after rewrite. Titoxd(?!?) 03:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Quietstorm[edit]

Vanity, vanity, vanity. I guess there's a claim or two of notability in there, but once you get the POV out of this I don't know what's left. Unreadable crap. Keep, after rewrite. R. fiend 15:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Delete The texture of humans bonds indeed! Dlyons493 Talk 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the rewrite - it's amazingly different. Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crrrrazy! delete per nom.--Alhutch 16:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Keep after rewrite. Good job by the wub.--Alhutch 18:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CLW 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Keep following rewrite! CLW 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google turns up 17,900 results, including a CD at the Japanese Amazon. Also has an allmusic entry. I'm going to try and clean this one up. the wub "?!" 16:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I've done my best, but most of the stuff I could find was in Japanese. Unfortunately I couldn't find his real name, but at least it's better than before. the wub "?!" 18:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good job; a completely new article! -R. fiend 18:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten article by the Wub as per WP:music. Well done, the Wub. Capitalistroadster 00:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — rewritten. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by the wub, great work. Hall Monitor 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the impressive rewrite. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus and so the article will be kept. DES (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth changes[edit]

An attempt to advance a theory that 2005 is a cataclysmic year. WP:NOT a soapbox. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been rewritten, it's no longer a soapbox but is now a perfectly respectable article on a fringe belief. Kudos to Spase on the rewrite, and my vote is changed to keep. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been substantially rewritten since it was Afd'ed. Please take another look at it if you've voted on it. --Clay Collier 10:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it also has no content. GTBacchus 05:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's got content now, so I cross that part out. I now say merge and redirect to Climate change. It'll make a good section there; when it gets big enough to be its own article, it'll split off naturally. GTBacchus 08:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how can we draw statistical relationships for a year that hasn't even ended? Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to cancel out disasters that have already happened - you would need some kind of negative natural disaster. silsor 06:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no content and the analysis of statistical information is origianal research (even if the data collection is not). If this is just to be a list of this years events then there are better places to put it, if it is an attempt to advance a theory then we don't want it. Andreww 08:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The cannot be a mere list of events. It has to reflect people's ideas that Earth is changing and the contradictions - as I said, it´s a popular concept. But that needs writing, work, and the article is just a few days old. Subramanian talk
    • Strong keep now. Although the page has the same name the content is very different (the subject has changed) and it is now a rather good article. Andreww 22:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. __earth 08:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that what the article was suggesting?
  • Delete. Enochlau 08:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone who's studied much statistics knows that random events often appear to clump. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per nom Qaz (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work, but Keep.Still far from adequate, but the content of the article has changed. There is a misunderstanding here. Please note that it is NOT an attempt to support apocalyptic theories at all. It does not matter whether we believe it is happening or not. But a Google Search on "Earth Changes" yields 756,000 hits. Our Wikipedia article should not prove or originally research anything, but it´s a popular concept. you see, White Supremacy is a bogus, dreadful and unscientific theory, with an important entry because many people belive in it. By the way, "White Supremacy" returns 743,000 results, less than "Earth Changes". Please review your opinions. Subramanian talk 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 473 are unique, and that's mostly because the phrase "earth changes" is a very common occurence. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 794 are unique for White supremacy. Subramanian talk
    How many hits for "White supremacy" or "White power" or "Neo-Nazi" or "Nazi party" or "Ku Klu Klan" or all of the other synonyms and related topics? White supremacy has had a major effect on the history of the US, as well as the world if you extend "white supremacy" to include the racially-motivated actions of the Nazi party. This theory is miniscule in comparison. "Earth changes," by contrast, is a new theory, has nearly no published support, has no cultural impact whatsoever, and isn't peer-reviewed as a theory. (Even the goofy claims of one race's superiority over the others have been extensively investigated as scientific hypotheses.) Find a better comparison. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: even with the rewrite, there is nothing new under the sun. Disasters happen every year and segments of the population generally cite each as evidence that the world is ending. There's nothing to salvage from this. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete attempt to link events which the article says cannot logically be linked. CLW 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verifiable -- there are no reliable scholarly sources advancing an "Earth Changes" theory for 2005. Xoloz 15:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , but be ready to Undelete when this idea gains a popular following which it almost certainly will. I just think were being too quick off the mark here. Lots of people I know are saying this but until it manifests as an identifiable movement we can't cover it. It doesn't need to have a scientific basis , Wikipedia has all sorts of articles on strange beliefs. Lumos3 17:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Subramanian talk
  • Delete as neologism, which, of course, may change. although, we do still have a wonderful article on scientology (which may be linked to the theory advanced... OPERATING THETANS!!!) Jesse 17:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. More troubling is that Subramanian is not disclosing that he is the article's author, and the feeling that somehow, I've seen this before...perhaps at best, this article should be subsumed as a subsection of End times or Eschatology. nae'blis (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are being unfair. How could I not disclose it? It´s there at the history log! No bad intentions at all. Subramanian talk
I know you have only the best of intentions, but technically the AfD guidelines suggest outright disclosure that one is the creator, if/when one votes, for future reference. That is from where Nae'blis' concern stems. Xoloz 15:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Xoloz, for saying that more clearly than I could. I figured there was a guideline but couldn't come up with the term. nae'blis (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research by some psychic who is trying to advance his blatantly false theory. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everybody knows the world already ended on October 13, 2002. ESkog | Talk 02:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Alex.tan 06:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, unverifiable. *drew 05:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but substantially refocus. As the article currently stands, it is too focused on events in the last year or so, but it has possibilities. The notion of 'Earth Changes' is actually fairly well known in the 'New Age' movement; I've stumbled across lots of documentary shows that discuss self-proclaimed psychics (Gordon Michael Scallion, for instance) who make claims about this sort of phenomenon. There's significant overlap with Judeo-Christian notions of the 'End Times', but there's also a semi-parallell tradition in the new age/psychic phenomena movement. It's enough of a pop culture and social phenomenon to warrant documenting, even if the current article is a little weak. I think chopping out the 'current phenomenon' and global warming section and turning it into a stub on the belief in Earth Changes would make this an ultimately viable and useful article. --Clay Collier 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - I completely re-wrote the article according to my own recommendations for making it focused on the belief in Earth Changes, rather than the somewhat un-focused bit that was there before. I really think that most of the criticisms that were leveled at the earlier article no longer apply. Please take a look at the new article. --Clay Collier 10:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The rewrite is definitely better, but I'm still concerned about whether we're just replicating material found in other articles, and whether that will just make the entire subject harder to keep up-to-date. I'm usually fairly inclusionist, but... still leaning Delete. nae'blis (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really seeing the maintenence issue. I haven't been able to find other articles that contain this particular information- could you link to where you think the overlap/problem is? There's quite a bit about belief in some sort of apocalypse, but nothing specific to this branch of the New Age tradition (except for a very short blurb on the Edgar Cayce page about his particular predictions). I think that this constitutes a distinct (if somewhat diffuse) idea- and the specific term itself seems to be in fairly wide use among these New Age groups. --Clay Collier 21:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now Keep - article has been improved even since my comment above and seems to be on good footing now. Edgar Cayce and related terms should link to this if/when it survives AfD. Cheers to all who worked on it. nae'blis (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though may need rewrite) -- This has been a standard term in the "New Age" or "proto-New-Age" community since the 1930s and should have a Wikipedia entry -- 10 October 2005
  • Keep seems newagey. Klonimus 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a fine article, and perfectly encyclopedic. --Ashenai (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Staples, Inc.. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Button[edit]

advert Geni 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:RHaworth. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evasive UDP Session Establishment[edit]

There is no content yet. The author says there will be content, but Delete artcile until such time as content is written. -- SGBailey 14:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As above. (This was originally Speedied, but Crash removed the speedy so I've AFD'd it instead. -- SGBailey 14:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It's still empty. Pilatus 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please delete this article, I will post once I have a complete write-up available. Sorry about all of this. --CraSH 20:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False Alarm[edit]

nn band. They are "ready to hit it big." R. fiend 14:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn.--Alhutch 15:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As always, once they hit it big, we'll be ready to keep an article. Until, delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity article with POV problems. Listen to the clips on their website and decide for yourself whether they're ever likely to "hit it big"... CLW 16:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else The Land 18:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and then make it a redirect to False alarm).  BD2412 talk 20:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and make redirect to False alarm per BD2412. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • a False alarm indeed. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please dont bring your bias crap to wikipedia --Neo2256
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fcrunk[edit]

Some web forums are notable enough to merit an article of their own. I don't think that this one is. -- Captain Disdain 22:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 22:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There are many websites in the world, few of them are significant. Friday (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a vanity page to me. --Knife Knut 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete FCrunk is a splinter site created by members of LivingWithStyle.com, one of the largest communities on the internet. In just a short time it has become a haven for people who don't quite like the ways of LWS. They are a growing community; a group of people congregating to share commonalities and like discourse, to forge relationships, and enterain themselves with their own brand of humor. Size does not matter, it's the heart of a community that matters. And this community has heart. This is coming from the person many of the members of fcrunk this is a horrible, evil, unethical monster who has forged a grand conspiracy to break the internet, so let them stay, as long as they get their facts right ;) DavidChapman 23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, but is it encyclopedic? Wikipedia is not a collection of every bit of random information in existane, and 440 google hits and 0 page views on Alexa dosn't bode well proving encyclopedic worthiness.--CastAStone 00:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per CastAStone. Also, geez, what a mess. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gets quite few Google hits for a web forum. If you're seeking publicity, this is not the place to do it; our articles should be about subjects that have earned the notability to be in an encyclopedia. --Idont Havaname 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete It's a branch of LivingWithStyle, which is a very popular website. If somebody made a wiki about a branch of a major company then would it deserve a spot here? It would, and this does. --Maesce 03:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just 180 members suggests to me it is not notable.--A bit iffy 09:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep by unanimous consent. Friday (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy[edit]

Completing nomination process started by User:69.193.44.60. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FOSE[edit]

Delete. Non-notable wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was copyvio/delete --Celestianpower hablamé 17:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Froo[edit]

  • Delete. dicdef. --Trovatore 02:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [8]. Also spam. Kappa 02:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CopyVio should be deleted Jesse 15:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - copyvio which is never going to be a proper article CLW 15:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Unanimous keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Online[edit]

(Since the original nominating editor didn't make a page here, I will, so this can be resolved and dealt with.) Trisk 08:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Keep - This is my fav Wikipedia article, this is how i found wikipedia. If this is removed pages for all online communities and games should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.150.178 (talk • contribs) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
  • Keep - Gaia Online is the largest internet forum of any genre, with over 2 million registered accounts. It's significant, popular, and it very much a part of the internet community these days. The article is significant, informative, and worth keeping. - Trisk 08:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Gaia Online supports a HUGE user base, and has tens of thousands of posts daily. It has boards for almost any topic imaginable, and a thriving community on only a slightly less order than Neopets. I suspect the initial nomination was done in bad faith, hence why the original nominating editor didn't make a page. Nezu Chiza 09:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bigger than NeoPets. Good God Man! All your children are belong to us Qaz (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination by User:69.193.44.60 (also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy.) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we do usually delete forums, but this one is huge and seems notable. Alexa rank 1,551. Although not quite perfect, this article is a pretty good example of how a forum article should be done. Note the absense of typical cruft/trivial material: no lists of admins, no details of personal conflicts, etc. It's all fairly tight and encyclopedic in tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it seems to be notable enough, although the article does need an overhaul - it's little more than a collection of dot-points.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the deletion suggestion does not even give a reason (there probably is none). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindri (talk • contribs)
  • Speedy keep for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 02:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gaia Online is a site with notable features that has drawn a significantly gigantic community. The user who put it up for deletion nomination seems to be doing it out of malice. The same user (as pointed out by JiFish) also seems to have made an article attempting to promote his/her own website, so my guess his/her reason being (or part of his/her reason) is basically out of "competitive" bias. Shadowolf 08:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I don't see how any sane person could seriously consider deleting an article such as this.--Atlantima 02:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's very much notable, as much as I hate it. Musteval 03:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just went there and their General Discussion forum alone had more than the first 25 pages with threads posted in today or yesterday. It's the most mind boggling forum I've seen on the net, and should be listed here for the reason it may be the largest community on the Internet alone. I dislike some parts of it, such as the totally uninformative list of NPC names which seemed very much insignificant. -- Jugalator 08:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A site of this size is noteworthy. —Hobart 08:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What a bad nomination. And I fail to see any "delete" votes as of yet. Deleting this page would call for the deletion of all forum-based wikipedia pages. Calicore 19:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep - This page is a helpful informant to the 2,702,092(as of 10/16/05) registered users of Gaia online. Having this article on Wikipedia also helps explain one of the most popular online games to non-users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.165.171 (talk • contribs) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
  • Keep - Until GameFAQs or NeoPets gets deleted, this has every right to be here. --Neonecron 01:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Juncal[edit]

Seems to be made up. Google gives me 21 hits when I search "General Juncal"; and no hits when I add the word "Donovan." What do y'all think? paul klenk talk 05:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 09:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, non-notable, no context (they don't even mention what work this fictional character is from!). --Clay Collier 11:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and for lack of context CLW 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In all likelihood another re-working of the previously deleted Generalismo Juncal (sic), which was itself a regurgitation of the previously deleted Seve Juncal. Anyway, there is no context to this article, it's non-notable and not encyclopedic. -- Sliggy 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable fictional character. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's Drinking Club[edit]

Non-notable, vanity CambridgeBayWeather 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't consider this to vanity, yet. If it stays as it is for a given period of time without providing any additional information, then yes. But, as it highlights an organization and not just an individual, and no one is named then how is it any more of a "vanity" than other similar organizations? Unsigned comment by User:Elementary. This is the first edit this user has made.
  • IMO, it's pretty clearly vanity because only one of the people involved would even know about it. Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity insofar as it appears to have been written by one of the group. CambridgeBayWeather 00:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm not entitled to an article about myself, should I be entitled to an article about my circle of friends at school? Or about my new boat? Or my left shoe? Weak delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ilmari Karonen 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article doesn't make sense. --DannyWilde 03:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn local social group. MCB 04:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article as written is a local social group, using a widely used term for their title. Average Earthman 11:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be established.Jesse 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, and yes, this is a vanity article IMO CLW
  • Delete esoteric and banal Brequinda 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I need a drink! Joaquin Murietta 22:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps API[edit]

Complete duplication of a small portion of Google Maps. The only content on this article not present at Google Maps is a link to MapBuilder.net, a site run by the contributor, who has only contributed to these two articles, and who has been unsuccessfully trying to berate the contributors of Google Maps to force them to link to his site (which has not been decided). I am using AFD in order to place a procedural imprint against this action (a delete would be a stronger response than a redirect IMO). - Keith D. Tyler 21:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Govclass[edit]

The site which is the focus of this article is unnotable, and the article itself is nothing more than an advertisement. StradivariusTV 03:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn/advert. MCB 05:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CLW 15:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greeno Sub Shop[edit]

This is a non-notable place of business: an on-campus restaurant for UMass, run by "20 students". Clearly it's a locally popular spot, but currently the article is lacking any useful information. Peruvianllama 04:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on adding more to this topic, but I've only just started. I'm new to Wiki, and don't know all the rules, but Greeno has a rich history and I think it should have a page that is linked from the UMass main page. I think that people who are interested in learning about UMass would be interested in learning about the history of Greeno. It is a non-profit business somehow stays alive even though it is run by completely different people every 4 years. Please don't delete the article!

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

The result of the debate was Merge into List of Advance Wars COs. (6M/3K) DES (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hachi[edit]

He's the shopkeeper in the Advance Wars series. He doesn't have a part in the nascent story of the three games in that series, he has perhaps two dozen total lines of dialogue, and, oh yeah, he's an unlockable character in the versus mode. This article currently has no content that could be merged into another article, and any potential content that would go in this article would better belong in List of Advance Wars COs or the respective games' articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He's playable in all modes, including Campaign. He has a backstory. I can make it longer than any Pokémon article. If a Dunsparce is considered notable, than Hachi can too. Dunsparce is a species, not even an individual character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not terribly enthusiastic about Dunsparce having its own article, it has appeared in at least nine games I can name, as well as two different anime series and a manga series. The same cannot be said for Hachi. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the game he appears in or into that list. -- Kjkolb 06:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was already decided that the article would be too long to merge him there. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's worth mentioning that two people weighed in on the "debate" to merge this there, and one of them is me and the other is LttP. (It's not as if "it was already decided" by some sort of lengthy debate or RFC or something.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the same with the editors, editors have been complying with the shortening of the character lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...huh? What are you talking about? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • In the history, other editors have been going along with this, only providing a paragraph of character information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I assumed that an article about a minor videogame character could be trimmed down and merged. -- Kjkolb 07:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • He isn't that minor of character. He has a decent enough backstory. Really, he doesn't deserve his own section on the game articles if others don't. I say, if Umaro can get his own article, there's nothing wrong with Hachi getting his own. He is immediately known to everyone who has played any of the AW games, at least, if they visit the Battle Maps store, which is available from the very beginning of each game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Advance Wars COs & trim. Notability of the character aside, the article reads like something from Gamefaqs and includes unencyclopedic minutiae (see Appearance section). --Anetode 11:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? Since when did describing his appearance become unencyclopediatic? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A detailed description of each item and accessory of clothing is a bit excessive, in that instance a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a minor character in a videogame (which is fictional, but not really a literary work) and should be merged with the aforementioned list as suggested in WP:FICT. Hachi's biographical details and purported motives would be better catalogued at Wikibooks, in a character faq. --Anetode 06:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep playable character from a major series from a legendarily notable company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be a third-order claim to notability; Hachi is notable because he's connected to a thing that is connected to a thing with its own claim to notability. I don't necessarily disagree that Advance Wars is an encyclopedic subject, but not every single person and object in that series borrows on the series' notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per anetode. Jesse 17:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too big to merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has been swelled with trivia. Half of this article is a detailed description, GameFAQs-style, of his in-game abilities and how to unlock him and a description of his appearance. This article could easily be synthesized into two paragraphs in a list, by leaving the game-guide stuff to GameFAQs or Wikibooks. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, describing many of Mario's abilities and their appearances is not trivial. Their unique abilities ARE encyclopediatic. Is the fact that Kanbei has more powerful units unencyclopediatic? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Describing them in detail, down to percentage differences and the specific method for unlocking him in each game, is not encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truncate and merge. -Sean Curtin 05:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or delete). There is simply not enough information about these CO's to warrant their own articles. Also, the people who actually care enough about the game to read these articles will already know the information, because they've played the game, so it fulfills no useful purpose.--Tjstrf 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As per Wikipedia:Article size, size limit is less critical for list, which is what List of Advance Wars COs will become. If the article becomes too long, it is still possible to break into List of Orange Star/Blue Moon/Green Earth/Yellow Comet/Black Hole COs. -- ReyBrujo 21:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by user request. android79 03:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Acuña[edit]

Dr. Acuña feels this page is an insult, offensive to his persona.

  • Delete seems also like a joke -- (drini's page|☎) 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: The article appears to have been written by the students of a Peruvian mathematics teacher, who apparently requests that it be deleted. Comment: As the article does not fulfill WP:V and WP:NOR, I'm voting to delete. encephalon 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as CSD:A7. IMO a math professorship and owning cows doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Factor in the apparent request by the subject for removal... I'd say this is a good speedy candidate. Otherwise, simply delete.--Isotope23 19:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, 1. the article as it stands makes too many claims that can reasonably be taken as assertions of notability. 2. the thoughts of the subject of an article on the article can be important context, but should not enter into decision making over keeping or deleting the article. Kind regards encephalon 19:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're such a stickler enceph  :)--Isotope23 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aren't I? :) If it means anything, it's borne out of experience with a functional bureaucracy. When you see very poor articles get speedied, but then nominated for undeletion at VFU and then returned to AFD to get redeleted 20 days later, that sort of becomes a strong incentive to help get things done correctly the first time, if only to save us some time. But you're right, it makes me look like a humorless drone. :) encephalon 20:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has assertions of notability, which prevents it from falling under CSD:A7, as per enceph, but still nn. But how do we verify that the subject is actually the one asking for removal? PacknCanes 22:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His students, such as me, thought he would appreciate this article on him. However, it seems that he does not. Due to the quotes and due to the fact that he does not like parents of new students to go online look for his name and find out most of his life. He simply feel its an invasion of privacy. If you check the History it was I who started the article, so you can verify so.

We feel we have caused enough trouble. Please delete the page. Please.misantropoalon

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Enemies[edit]

WP is not a repository of speeches, fictional or otherwise. Seems to be part of a made-up (non-Google) story; see its link to General Juncal, which I have also nominated for deletion.paul klenk talk 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete made-up speech of unverifiable (hopefully about-to-be-delete) character. Dlyons493 Talk 09:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fictional speech by fictional character. CLW 15:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely non-notable, non-verifiable speech made by a person who is also lacking notability. -- Sliggy 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional speech. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep DES (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Hahn[edit]

Vanity article and non-notable person. Jake013 10:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. lol non-notable person grammy winning person.--Hhielscher 10:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Definitely notable. Anville 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad-faith nom from a user who seems to have a vendetta against violinists (a violist, perhaps)? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Piccadilly 11:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Also, the article could use more content at the top. -- Kjkolb 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, and someone please stop User:Jake013 now. -- Egil 12:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable violinist. Agree User:Jake013 should be stopped. -- Dlinga 13:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Not sure if User:Jake013 really knows his violinists. He got Heifetz right, but surely should have moved on to Perlman or Kreisler rather than Hahn etc. Somebody stop him! Dlyons493 Talk 14:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is getting ridiculous. Incidentally, I expanded Hahn's article a little bit. Chick Bowen 15:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above.--Alhutch 15:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per WP:music. Has made several albums for Deutsche Grammophon, a highly notable classical record company and won a Grammy. I repeat my earlier advice to user Jake013 to study WP:music carefully before making any further nominations. BTW is there an admin in the house to close the debate. Capitalistroadster 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and block the user for the bad faith nomination. --Mateusc 16:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of bugs[edit]

NN website, also seems to have attacks in the article.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack kenny[edit]

Non-notable author who apparently got 1 book published. Tempshill 17:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would vote Keep, on the basis that it is a genuinely published book. However, it is published by [9]. Whlie this is not a vanity outfit, it acts unlike a normal publisher in that it doesn't make any effort to market the book, and it produces a small number of copies that are sent to sellers on a 'returnable' basis. I think that being published by PublishAmerica or a similar outfit should not be regarded as producing notability. The Land 18:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree (and voted below), but would point out that returnability is a criterion in support of the legitimacy of a publisher, rather than the opposite. Trade (legitimate commercial) publishers' books are returnable. MCB 23:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur with The Land's assessment. Amazon isn't selling the book and unless Mr. Kenny publishes other books I don't think he has quite gotten to notability yet.--Isotope23 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per The Land. MCB 23:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Doc glasgow. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jemz[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. 143.111.32.188 14:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy sand[edit]

Unverifiable vanity, nn. Not quite Speedy because of claim of leadership? Dlyons493 Talk 21:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Deletion This is a nonsense vanity page. Bwithh 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-contradictory hoax. --Metropolitan90 03:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete clearly a rubbish post, get rid of it -JvHowell
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 17:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Uresti[edit]

Y'know, after my first full day as an admin, it feels really weird to be nominating such a blatantly worthless article for deletion instead of just deleting it myself. But the article does claim noteworthiness (despite Google not knowing the name at all), so nn-bio doesn't apply. DS 01:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense article, vanity page and or not notable, you pick it.--MONGO 02:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Grammy Award winners and performers of #1 hits are notable per WP:MUSIC, but the person actually has to have accomplished those things, not just make up claims to having done so. --Metropolitan90 02:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if someone wants to source those claims I might reconsider, but until then, he seems thoroughly nn. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. People who achieve any position on the US charts let alone #1 or win Grammys tend to have comprehensive Allmusic.com articles. This fellow doesn't have an Allmusic.com article. They also tend to Google well. This fellow has two results [10] relating to a Christina Aguilera guestbook. Unfortunately, that is as close as he gets to meeting WP:music. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. I guess this person read our WP:CSD and WP:MUSIC and learned to make a claim, knowing they'ld get a free web page for five days. --rob 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above Qaz (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax Jesse 14:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax CLW 15:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax I googled PETA, Joe and Uresti and came up empty.Joaquin Murietta 22:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jupp's syndrome[edit]

Reverted the txt to original, it is complete nonsense, I know who made it! One for BJAODN methinks. Comments by the later editor I think are particullarly amusing! Jezze 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-verified. --Vsion 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Land 18:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... at least someone stubbed it.--Isotope23 19:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probable hoax. chowells 19:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinterval[edit]

An article about a break period at a particular school. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 14:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. -- SGBailey 14:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete boredomcruft. I doubt even the poster will care about it in a year or so. --InShaneee 17:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete! Why is it such a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.129.161 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 October 2005
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism referring to a break period at a particular school. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. Neologism referring to a break period at a particular school. Does not create disturbance to Wiki community or contain any offensive language. Essentially harmless PoloShot 05:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L-factor.net[edit]

Forumcruft. Current contents are only useful to forum's insiders. Delete if this is non-notable or rewrite completely if it's notable. — JIP | Talk 12:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete classic forumcruft. From the article's History section: "Not really a huge amount to tell here, but ill go old school to jazz it up." Alexa rank is 633,946, so no cleanup would help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Masterhatch 18:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jotter and the Really Bad Parody[edit]

tagged as a speedy for non-notability, which is not a speedy criterion. Sounds of dubious notability from the article text. Abstain pending evidence on the notability issue. DES (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any Googlable evidence on this parody "mini-movie", the earlier one the group was supposed to have made, or the group themselves. I have more mini-films to my credit than this, and I haven't made an article about them. Anville 17:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 5 google hits. 5. I have more fingers than that. Not notable. The Land 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. A Google search for "Larry Jotter" gets exactly three hits, only one of which has those words in the search context, and that link is a dead link. -- The Anome 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my earlier non-vote to Delete as per the comments above. DES (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of freshman physics[edit]

  • Delete. Mildly cute if you've never seen it, but not encyclopedic. --Trovatore 01:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, not particularly funny either. Average Earthman 11:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More like a compendium of freshman (sophomoric) humor Professor water 12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN else delete Jesse 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - twaddle CLW 15:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny enough to be in BJAODN page with emphasis on the 'deleted'.Borisblue 19:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Mildly funny. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MIT vanity. (Can we add that to WP:CSD..? ;) -- SCZenz 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leech virus[edit]

Hoax, nonsense. Sadly, it does not meet WP:CSD criteria, so marking AFD. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged Speedy right now, and I believe it qualifies under the speedy for cut & paste copyvio.--Isotope23 19:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete this article.  Denelson83  07:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leeteracy[edit]

  • Delete. dicdef plus epsilon. --Trovatore 04:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism + OR. MCB 05:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of British television personalities with a deformed hand[edit]

This is taking granularity to ridiculous extremes! OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ditto. -- SGBailey 14:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but my how I laughed. What if someone was being serious with this one? CLW 14:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mind you, this may make the person who wrote Delete as the very definition of listcruft about the List of moustached footballers reconsider! Dlyons493 Talk 15:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I'm aware the only person on the list is the only British TV personaility who famously has a deformed hand in any case – probably meant as a "hilarious joke". Tonywalton  | Talk 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • wtf? - I mean - Delete. What a load of **** -- Francs2000 19:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, Dlyons492, this is what listcruft aspires and strives to become!! MCB 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly listcruft. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I said that List of moustached footballers was listcruft at its worse and this is even worst than that. Maybe BJAODN for being the stupidest list of all time. --JAranda | yeah 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose we expand this list, preferably by maiming some English TV stars. Delete as incredibly pointless list. (I'm surprised it has as many entries as it does.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, so am I. This started off with one item; now it has (as I write) four. I'd forgotten Dave Allen's finger, and Terry Nutkins and the otter. Maybe it's a list worth having (though if there are any more than four in a couple of days' time I'll be amazed. Changing my vote to 'Weak Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it in. I would never have known Terry Nutkins had a deformed hand prior to seeing this list. --82.36.83.83 10:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't believe this article hasn't been deleted yet. Masterhatch 18:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous people who died young[edit]

I think this is a pointless list. JW1805 17:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. It has a column describing what these people are known for, which is quite interesting. --Vsion 18:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't. Keep. It's more useful than List of Songs which have Telephone Numbers In The Title or List Of People With Pet Elephants. The Land 19:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 18:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you care to give a reason why? the wub "?!" 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong keep Interesting, maintainable, and already populated. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very interesting article. Tintin 18:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's so interesting that it's been on my watchlist for a while just for reference purposes.ErikNY 19:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and useful article. Davewild 19:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "I think this is a pointless list" isn't a very good reason for deletion.--Kewp (t) 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, not a big fan of standalone lists... but this seems to have encyclopedic value.--Isotope23 20:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Absolutely encyclopedic. PacknCanes 22:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list --JAranda | yeah 22:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and useful list. the wub "?!" 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm one of the resident listcruft deletionists, but this is what an interesting, well-expanded list, with links, should be. MCB 23:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's interesting, useful, and very well-done. --Idont Havaname 01:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but I'm surprised that 40 is the cut off date (30 was what I had in mind.) Sabine's Sunbird 02:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: lowering it to 30 would make it much more manageable, like Dead or Alive does. -- Kjkolb 04:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep best stand-alone list I've run across on wikipedia. Youngamerican 17:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless and unmanagable. For much of human history, most people died before 30. Martg76 22:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Were they all famous ? :-) Tintin 22:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of them to make this page extremely long. Martg76 22:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maximum keep I use it as a reference. And, of course, I contribute to it regularly. Giftlite 01:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Legends of the Hidden Temple. Article text copied to Talk page of merged article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes[edit]

Cruft which, IMO, doesn't deserve its own article. Delete CLW 16:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MOVED to rugby player and made a disambiguation page by GordyB. Robert 22:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of rugby players[edit]

There is no sport called 'rugby', there are two different sports called 'rugby union' and 'rugby league'.

All this article does is link to List of footballers (Rugby Union) and List of footballers (Rugby League) GordyB 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but still I can imagine a user assuming there would be a list of rugby players and being surprised not to find one. This page would be useful as a kind of dismabig page, so I vote keep and reformat as disambig page. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Angr --Anetode 10:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per Angr Piccadilly 11:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If you keep it as a disambig, then you violate the disambiguation naming guideline for it. Further, the implication of the title is that this is going to be a list of all rugby players, which would mean that it includes my college buddies who played it for a few games in the summer before giving it up. Remember List of people who have not committed suicide is a bad idea. So is List of rugby players. Geogre 12:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as disambig, maybe redirect to a disambig called "rugby players" so as to remove implication of completeness of list. Jesse 13:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambiguation page as per Angr. Qwghlm 13:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above.Trollderella 15:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambig. --Monkbel 16:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure it counts as a true disambig, or not. But, however it's done, people should be able to type in "List of rugby players" and get to what they're looking for. --rob 20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is pretty universal that this page should be made into a disambiguation page. No need for any further votes I think. I'll do it when I get a chance.GordyB 13:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Temple Rooms and layouts[edit]

Contextless, meaningless list of stuff. No purpose. R. fiend 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loey Nelson[edit]

Tagged for deletion by User:Quasipalm on October 10. Completing nomination. Punkmorten 15:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loners[edit]

According to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this must go! Strongly POV composition (unless for every name you have a link to them saying "Well, I always felt like I was alone in this world...") and unmaintainable. If at all necessary this should be a category. GarrettTalk 11:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic, essentially impossible to render NPOV. --Clay Collier 11:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is "loner"? --Mateusc 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, there's no way to make this list even approach NPOV. Second, why isn't my name on it? Anville 16:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, POV.-gadfium 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not even rise to the level of listcruft on a good day. MCB 22:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I don't think I even have to look at the edit history of this AfD discussion. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LPO[edit]

The subject does not exist. It was entered here to make it look 'real' Yggdrasil 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Yggdrasil 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a nomination automatically a delete vote unless the nominator states otherwise? Tonywalton  | Talk
I don't know, I've never nominated for deletion before; the documentation seemed to imply I should do that, but it does seem a little redundant... --Yggdrasil 04:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable nonsense, probably some sort of soccer-related hoax. Note to those in non-footbally nations, Liverpool has two rival major football teams, and Everton are the ones who wear a blue strip. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The last sentence gives the game away, boys! Eddie.willers 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullshit someone deleted all the supporting evidence that was up...this process is fucking corrupt, wikipedia is run by some faggy commies...you all suck hitlers dead cock!--Rob
That's not needed Rob, relax. Siebren
  • Keep What is this all about? Who's to say that the LPO doesn't exist? I hate every single one of them, but they're definitely real. What does Yggdrasil know anyways?? What kind of name is that? I was in Calgary a few weeks ago where I understand they've just opened up a new chapter and believe me, I wish I had never found out about them. I am a fairly religious person, so one Sunday after church I'm waiting to cross the street, and this little old nun was having some trouble. Being the nice guy that I am, I decided to help her accross the street. There were a few other people crossing the street as well as it was a busy service. I'll never forget the guy walking next to me. He was wearing a blue jersey with I think "Chang" or something written on it. (I later found out it was an Everton Football Club jersey (the scouse accent was unmistakenable thinking about it now) which makes me wonder where the last line of the description came from..... Yggdrasil probably added it if he really is a member of a rival crew) Anyways, we get across the street and the man (I'd guess 6'3, brown hair, fairly big guy in general)grabbed the little old lady and ran. I tried chasing after him, but believe me, I'm not much of a physical specimen. I keep looking for them when I hear screams from behind a building. Awful screams that I'll never forget. It took me another few minutes to find where they came from, and when I got there, all I saw was the nun's black robe. I never saw the little old lady again, or the guy dressed in blue, but if I had..... well I don't know what I would have done, he was huge. Needless to say, I was pretty pissed off about the days happenings. I got back to my friends' place where I was staying and told him about the events of the day. To my surprise, he just shrugged it off and explained everything to me. He knew about the LPO and apparently that was the 5th nun that month to just "disappear". Apparently they have connections inside multi-national organizations and are next to impossible to track down. I'll never forget that day, but reading these BS posts about how it's not real has got me pretty riled up. Are any of you even from Calgary??--Concerned Calgary visitor
  • Keep LPO is real, if you dont know ya betta ask somebody from TOXTETH.Yggdrasil is a member of a rival crew hell bent on disrespecting the LPO. Fuck you, you cock sucking twats......LPO will have its revenge.--London Philharmonic Orchestra
  • Keep I personally know someone who was robbed by Yggdrasil... I don't think he should be considered credible in this matter being a memeber of a rival group. -LPO Forever-
  • Keep I'm not sure why some people think this is a hoax but LPO is no laughing matter. There have been rumours flying around that members of the gang are appearing in London Ont. Canada. Law enforcement officials are attributing the apparent relocation of these gang members to the record number of homicides in London this year. -Scared In London
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lywellyn[edit]

Not notable, likely vanity/spam. Caesura(t) 22:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete DES (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaty Meat[edit]

Pointless, pointless, pointless KramarDanIkabu (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moralityphobia[edit]

Little used neologism with only 23 hits on Google, created with the explanation "We'll see how long this POV article lasts, as opposed to , say, the homophobia article which has lasted for a long time". Falls under the policy "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (or indeed for any other reason)". Warofdreams talk 16:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Warofdreams talk 16:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Those 23 hits are about six distinct hits, BTW. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter nonsense. Do not merge. Exploding Boy 17:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Heterophobia. I created the Moralityphobia article and was not aware that there was already another parallel article. MPS 17:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, bit of WP:POINT too. Reminds me of the Islamophilia/Ameriphobia mess. Rhobite 17:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should remind you of this mess. See below. Uncle G 18:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew that we've had this before. But it took me a while to find it. See Moralphobia (AfD discussion). I draw Rhobite's attention to who the nominator was. ☺ Uncle G 18:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, I thought we'd had this discussion before too but I couldn't remember the article. Turns out I nominated moralphobia for deletion. Good find.. Rhobite 21:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment whoever nominated that one. you'll find it was I (who wasn't even around back then) who first placed the afd tag on Moralityphobia, in fact, but I was beaten to it on the afd2 tag.I have no axe to grind here. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Warofdreams and do not merge. neologism and basically incomprehensible nonsense. Kewp (t) 19:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & do not merge as per Rhobite. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-12 T 00:42:04 Z
  • Even Jesus can't save this tripe. I vote Delete without merge, evil intolerant liberal that I am. --Last Malthusian 10:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless documented claims to its common usage can be produced. -Seth Mahoney 03:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call for a final vote here. The horse is dead. Moralphobia is a better term anyways [12]MPS 02:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New 90s[edit]

Delete Phrase without any particular notoriety [13]} and no sources. PhilipO 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced jibberjabber! Eddie.willers 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 03:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why not list "New 90s" on 2000s as another name for the 00s? else, it's not really needed.QzDaddy 18:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP (I presume all the delete votes apply to the version prior to the rewrite). — JIP | Talk 10:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ningi[edit]

dicdef for a fictional object that amounts to a one-line joke in a popular book. Zero potential for expansion. Not really significant enough to even warrant a merge. Clay Collier 09:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --Clay Collier 09:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though there is perhaps scope for some discussion of H2G2 in another article. Grobertson 09:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At absolute best merge to Fictional currencies. The Land 18:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fictional currencies. That's what that list is for. Trollderella 18:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to fictional currencies. Kappa 01:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are real places called Ningi, so I made it into a disambig. Kappa 01:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is now a disambiguation, a summation of all of the different redirects for all of the different Ningis, including the aforementioned. Keep. Uncle G 03:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 23:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) tally on talk page[reply]

Nobody likes onions[edit]

This page is about a non-notable podcast The Land 13:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The show does happen to have 5,000+ listeners in only 4 months. (Unsigned comment by User:67.52.216.10 )
  • Delete per nomination.
  • Delete per nom. This was speedily deleted earlier. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody Likes Onions is in the top 15 of Podcasts in the World and is in good standing in the ever-expanding podcast community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.1.104 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2005
  • Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This podcast is currently ranked #8 in the world at podcastalley.com and that's in 4 short months. How is that "non-notable"?

This show is of no consequence to the general community. The rankings on podcastalley.com are based on votes by listeners. It's possible for one person to vote repeatedly, thus making the rankings useless. It seems like the top ten podcasts in the world as per ranked by podcastalley are different each month, which makes citing NLO as the number eight podcast even less useful, as it is likely that a new crop of podcasts will hold the top spots in the coming month.

Bottom line: this is a non-notable podcast. Efforts to argue otherwise are based on irrelevant information. This is NLO-Cruft and should be deleted.

  • Spoken like a true person that knows nothing about podcasts or podcasting. Votng is by listeners, making NLO a topic of pop culture. It's not person for one person to vote repeatedly unless they do so from different IP addresses and email addresses. You don't know what you're talking about. NLO has consistently been climbing the ranking snce it's inception. There are a million entries in Wikipedia that serve only as a reference for pop culture items. This is no different. Do not delete!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 15:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Party[edit]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This band is extremely alternative and thus, has not been heard of by many people. They have not signed to a record label and keep to themselves, but they do exist, meet and perform.

bandvanity

  • Delete Gazpacho 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity CambridgeBayWeather 01:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bandity. AMG has never heard of them, and nothing to suggest they meet WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 01:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, vanity. Alex.tan 04:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn vanity CLW 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because a band exists does not mean they are notable enough to include in Wikipedia. There are many thousands of signed bands out there. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm with the general concencus - if a band is established, signed and reasonably popular it *may* deserve a wikipedia page. But this is an encyclopedia, not mp3.com. James Pinnell 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with above --DarbyAsh 09:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one, but I wish the author would come back with an article on Melbourne Alternative Music, with sourcing, photos, public domain .wav files and links. Joaquin Murietta 22:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 17:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate janice brown rogers[edit]

Polemics ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV essay. The title is garbled also; the judge is Janice Rogers Brown. --Metropolitan90 02:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV rant, probably just posted to stir up anti-Miers sentiment - not coherent enough to be a serious argument.  BD2412 talk 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a blog entry expressing a personal opinion. It is not an encyclopedia entry written according to NPOV. It is doubtful that anybody would search for information on this title and there is nothing that can be usefully added to our article on Judge Brown. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV by title. Nothing useful can be made out of this. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as un-encyclopædic POV.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn, POV, essay, vanity. Jesse 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV. Original research? CLW 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northern techno alliance[edit]

Smells like advertising to me. -- Grev -- Talk 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Anville 16:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only smells like advertising, but looks and sounds like it too. PacknCanes 22:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. There appears to have been no evidence of verifiability offered to assuage the concerns. -Splashtalk 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obersturmführerin[edit]

This article is nominated for deletion as I believe there was no such female rank in the SS. Females were not permitted to join the SS or hold regular SS ranks. Such female members were known collectively as "SS-Helferin". I have never heard of an SS rank known by this name nor have seen it liste din any publication or work about the SS. Husnock 05:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Take a look at the Margot Dreschel article; there seems to be a decent chance that this is real and verifiable. --Clay Collier 11:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the titles from the article as ambiguious and unverifable. I also have a scan of an actual SS-Female Auxiliary record which I will add to the talk page of Helferin as soon as I make the article. In the record, there is no mention at all of these strange other ranks. The ranks, themselves, looks like someone just added "in" to the end of exsting male SS ranks. I am very suspicious that these ranks do not in fact exist. -Husnock 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Margot Dreschel article does reference this word, however this was added to the article by the same IP that created the Obersturmführerin article; not exactly compelling evidence. Googling the term turns up several mirrors of this wiki article and the Margot Dreschel wiki article. It also produces a number of references to the term on German language sites (big surprise eh)? My German isn't the greatest, but it doesn't appear that the sites referencing this word in German are even remotely related to the SS or Nazis... though the references could be to Nazism as the context may be understood by the writer and the intended audience. Google translates Obersturmführerin as "Upper tower guide" thoug I think literally it would translate to "over storm leader". Point is that so far this isn't remotely verifiable and unless someone can provide a solid source for the claim that this is a female rank in the SS, I will say delete. On a side note, it appears that women were only allowed in the SS Auxillary ranks (as Husnock stated).--Isotope23 16:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ranks and insignia of the Schutzstaffel if it can be verified, else delete Jesse 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless its existence is reliably verified. Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Google search finds little but Wikipedia mirrors. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. -Sean Curtin 05:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain can we have someone from de:wiki take a look at this.Klonimus 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Incidentally, it is for Wikt to clean up its own articles. -Splashtalk 23:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Off the schnide[edit]

  • delete slangdef --Trovatore 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite/Cleanup then move to Wiktionary. Term has some usage according to google; however, it's meaning appears to be somewhat different than indicated. Cool3 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original Adventures of Felix the Cat[edit]

Please see related nomination for deletion of The Original Adventures of Felix the Cat. BrianSmithson 23:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably an NN repackage of the original --Rogerd 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is plausible that there was a 1991 VHS relaese of old Felix episodes to catch ahold of buzz concerning the Felix movie that year, this has to be either a hoax or a NN repackage of the made for TV cartoons. Caerwine 04:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osmotrophy[edit]

Does this make any sense to anyone? R. fiend 17:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not me; delete as nonsense. Tempshill 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as perfectly comprehensible term (except the author failed to include the word "active" in "active uptake", making it indistinguishable from Osmosis as it stands). "I don't understand it" is not a criterion for deletion; if it were I'd be voting to delete one heck of a lot of games-related articles! Tonywalton  | Talk 17:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, it's been completely rewritten by Uncle G. Actually makes sense now. I'll withdraw this. -R. fiend 17:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles rewritten by Uncle G. Kappa 00:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Painting tutorials[edit]

Wikipedia articles aren't tutorials. If the author wishes, let him put this tutorial somewhere in Wikibooks. But please don't vote "transwiki". As far as I know the transwiki process is broken, and there's no history to maintain anyway. dbenbenn | talk 00:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A Wikibooks article. The user can put it on a user page and then post it there, but it doesn't belong here. Geogre 12:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: nn and extremly POV. else delete Jesse 13:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not sure how this has stayed here so long! CLW 15:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Monkbel 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again, by nom. feydey 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nom. the wub "?!" 23:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to transwiki. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 15:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul vigoda[edit]

Almost speedied this, but claims to be a published author. Still, even published authors are held to some standards. This guy has one children's book that isn't at amazon. Fven he puts his achievment as an author behind his statys as a teacher. R. fiend 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable person. If the consensus is keep, move to Paul Vigoda. -x42bn6 Talk 01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion. Author blanked the entry after discovering this AfD. jni 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity and nn. Jesse 14:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. CLW 15:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pimped Cat Designs[edit]

It is self promotion

Tony Bruguier 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Doc (?) 11:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Urban ll[edit]

Speedy delete. Nonsense. It's... Thelb4! 17:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep Titoxd(?!?) 03:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

President Kennedy School and Community College[edit]

Non-notable. It has a very nice looking article, but there is nothing notable about the school. The details about the students, departments and curriculum could be about any secondary school in England. --Daniel Lawrence 09:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. good article, and per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 09:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For understanding education in Coventry, England. --Vsion 09:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Piccadilly 11:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above. Trollderella 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Xoloz 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What about Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete? I fail to see why this school is any more important than any other secondary school in the country. Also, in my opinion, "good article" does not mean "worthy of an article". If the article was not formatted and presented in a nice way, would people be so keen to keep it? I just find it strange that non-notability is a strong deletion criteria, but because the article is on a school, it's considered to be worth keeping. This is not an argument, and it's not going to harm me if the article stays or not, but I'm just trying to get an understanding of the thinking behind the votes. --Daniel Lawrence 17:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Friend, if you haven't noticed, this debate is very, very, very old. For a very detailed explication of my feelings, see this. Xoloz 17:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I can imagine it's a debate that has gone on for quite some time now. Your article was interesting, and it's good to read something considering both viewpoints. I didn't know there was such a big thing on Wikipedia about school articles. I've stayed away from creating any of my own in the past, because I thought they would be deleted for non-notability. I know better now. --Daniel Lawrence 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disk Cheap time Expensive. Stop nominating schools. You state that "non-notability is a strong deletion criteria." Could you point that out in policies for me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't like your tone. I was friendly, Xoloz was friendly in his/her response, but you were not. There's no need for it. "Stop nominating schools" - this is the only school I have nominated. Non-notability is a strong deletion criteria, as most articles that get deleted are because of non-notability (and/or non-encyclopedic content). --Daniel Lawrence 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't like your nomination. I was professional but brief. You state again that "Non-notability is a strong deletion criteria," and I repeat "Could you point that out in policies for me?" Look at all this time we're wasting! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hipocrite, briefly and professionally, my answer to your request for pointing is: Examine deletion log, any day. Note reasons given. See de facto. Note also that the recently adopted CSD A7 (though not directly on point) does suggest in its terms that "notability" is a recognizable, important feature of the deletion process. Note CSD A7 adopted by consensus. Thanks Xoloz 04:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • CSD A7, adopted by consensus, reads, in full "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. For details, see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles." This does not apply to schools, which are not real people, nor does it have the word "notable" in it. I dispute that de facto notability is a criteria, given the fact that the comment down one from this, mine, and scores of others dispute such a distinction. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I suggested, CSD A7 is not directly on point, but it suggests that "unimportant" or "insignificant" bios are deletable on site -- to claim that this doesn't reach notability (at least for biographies) would be an act of semantic sophistry of the first order. Your dispute is noted. Also note many others accept this de facto use, and so your apparent surprise at Daniel Lawrence's observation was either a fairly strange oversight, or disingenuity on your point. Thanks, Xoloz 21:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • My disgust at Daniel Lawrence's willingness to dissemble regarding "strong deletion criteria" is disgust at dissembling. Even the strongest deletionists do not call the disputed, possibly "de facto" deletion criteria that has not deleted a school in weeks "strong." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, I see the reason for your upset, and I apologize for my own hard-line. :) It has, however, subsequently become apparent that D. Lawrence is a relative newbie to the schools debate, in his defense. Xoloz 14:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway there's no consensus to apply non-notability to schools, or metro stations, or hollywood movies, or villages, or pokemons, or warships, so it can't be that strong a criterion. Kappa 21:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Time is expensive - that also applies to users. Since we're talking generically, my opinion is that we should be considering with school articles if there is enough specific information on a school to warrant a separate article, or whether the information would be better served elsewhere (e.g information on the village's elementary school in the village article). If a school article is long, pretty, and 95% a statement of the obvious then one has to wonder if it is the best way to present the information. For example, although this article is better than a number of the virtual stubs we've had recently, a lot of the organisation described is just mirroring the UK's National Curriculum specification, and therefore will be the same as the vast majority of schools in the UK (although a school psychology department is a new one to me). Average Earthman 19:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merges do not require a deletion - in fact, a vote for "merge" is a vote for keep (and replace with a redirect). Feel free to go ahead and merge things, and if consensus agrees that things should be merged, then they will remain merged. In fact, if this article were not under AFD, you could go ahead and merge it right now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the school, which sounds different from those I'm familiar with (though I guess much of that is just terminology). It does have too much padding (one assumes an English school has an English department), but that's fixable. --rob 20:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could someone point out this school's claim to notability, without having to resort to inherent properties? It may be long and nicely written, but that doesn't make it automatically suitable for Wikipedia.--inksT 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about an important, distinctive and verifiable topic, and thus automatically suitable for wikipedia. Kappa 21:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, that's a "No, I can't point out any claim this school has to notability, but I do assert it has an inherent right to be here", is that right?--inksT 21:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's no more notable than an average secondary school, or metro station, or Slate journalist, but like them it belongs in wikipedia. Kappa 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could have just said "Yes" :) --inksT 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of notability is not a valid criteria for deletion of school articles, as per WP Policy.--Nicodemus75 21:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen a WP Policy page stating that "school articles cannot be judged for inclusion based on notability". Provide a link, if you have one.--inksT 21:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never seen a WP Policy page stating that "food article cannot be judged for inclusion based on the number of times the word 'the' is used in the article." Provide a link, if you have one. Neither the "use of the word 'the'" nor "notability" is listed in any Wikipedia policy page as a criteria for deletion. In fact, there is no Wikipedia policy on notability, nor is there a proposal for one.Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I spent a while compiling this article - if users are not happy with perhaps they can suggest a merger with the Coventry page or some other step. It would have been pleasant if someone had contacted me first. I do hope that something of this article is retained - either as the article itself or as part of the Coventry page. I had hoped people might add the history as this is a non-American school named after an American President. Just my thoughts. Davidkinnen 21:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure any user who searched for that article would be perfectly happy to find it. If it had to be merged somewhere, something like Schools in Coventry would be best, but I don't think it's really appropriate. As rob mentioned, it's not very surprising that the school has an English department, but it would be interesting to know the relative numbers of staff in each department. Kappa 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — RJH 16:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because the consensus is that we keep all community colleges so please do not try to erase any more Yuckfoo 22:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Dudtz 10/12/05 8:37 Pm EST
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This is a fantastic article about a noteworthy educational institution, and is important to the community which it serves. Silensor 07:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell me, what is noteworthy about it? Fire stations, surgeries, police stations, post offices, newsagents are all important to local communities. Does that mean every one of them in the country should get their own article? --Daniel Lawrence 08:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now we're talking.--Nicodemus75 21:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The answers to your initial question can be located in the link I provided. Thank you. Silensor 21:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 15:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as copyvio (it even said "copyright" at the bottom of the article. -R. fiend 01:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyromaniax[edit]

Non-notable group, vanity, advertisement. Would be A7 speedy if it were about a single person. Article written in German. Ilmari Karonen 01:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. This is a rather tricky one. 19 people expresed definate opnions. Of these 6 or 32% chose a simple keep as their first option, 3 chose a rename (which two others listed as a second choice), and 2 a merge to an existing article, for a total of 11 or just under 58% for keeping on en.wikipedia in some form, with a simple keep the most common chice among those 11. DES (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Mechanics - simplified[edit]

Delete, perhaps merge anything useful into Quantum mechanics. Appears to be a fork of that article. android79 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki/Merge with simple:Quantum mechanics (which is currently just a stub). Qwghlm 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that simple:Quantum mechanics is supposed to be a translation of Quantum mechanics into simple language. The ideas aren't supposed to be simplified. dbenbenn | talk 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with simple:Quantum mechanics or the main article (certainly no reason for two articles with the same purpose). I strongly feel that Wikipedia is alienating the very same community for which it purports to be in existence. If the articles are insurmountable due to vocabulary and/or presentation, only the very scholarly benefit, not the masses eager to acquire its knowledge. Articles such as Astrophysics and Wing could have been written purely scientifically but instead they are written with the intent to include readers; why must the assumption be that some articles should be written to exclude? Grika Ⓣ 01:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand (with reservations). I think the main QM article should not be written as a popularization; if there's to be one, it should be a separate article. But I'm a little unhappy with the chatty style of this article; doesn't really sound encyclopedic. And I haven't checked to see if there are any clamorous errors, but popularizations usually have them, and these often result in extremely refractory misconceptions. Someone who's really competent to do so (not I!) should go over it with a fine-toothed comb. --Trovatore 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge with Quantum mechanics. If the main article is so incomprehensible as to require a seperate page for the layperson, then perhaps the main article is of a more technical and less encyclopaedic nature, and would benefit from the less intense wording of the simplified form. otherwise, delete as redundant.Jesse 13:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article as it stands is complete wothless garbage containing irrelevancies and inaccuracies and no sources. The contributors appear clueless as to the subject they purport to expound upon. There is nothing in the article worth keeping, expanding on or merging. People should write about what they know. This subject is legendary for its difficulty for good reason. Don't take my word for it; show the article to someone you know with advanced physics knowledge. WAS 4.250 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC) See my changed opinion for a changed article below. WAS 4.250 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quantum mechanics exists. Pilatus 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current article contains inaccurate information and thus is of little value. That being said, I can see what the author was trying to do; make an esoteric subject more accessible. The current Quantum Mechanics is understandable to many people, but probably goes over the head of many readers, and thus lacks some encyclopedic value... I'm torn on this because I like the concept, but not the article.--Isotope23 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are voting on the article. For a quick introduction to get the flavour of quantum mechanics one should mention the correspondence principle and the uncertainty principle – both of which are actually remarkably intuitive concepts. Those two can go into a paragraph of the main article quantum mechanics. This article here has neither and a lot of waffle to boot. Pilatus 16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still don't think adding those concepts to the existing quantum mechanics will do much to make it understandable to the general public, but you are right the current article in discussion has significant problems. I'm not really the right person to rewrite it though, so I'll just abstain and see what happens.--Isotope23 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a book for youngsters --Monkbel 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand I was the one who started this, and then I got sidetracked by work, unfortunately. My apologies to the community. I happen to agree that this article is not anywhere near finished and I would not let all the contributions stand as they are definitely not good enough, but it was intended to invite contributions and get started. I requested that people woould contribute to the discussion as I was happy to take in suggestions and write up the article myself, and I wish people had done this. I strongly feel that there should be simplified versions of difficult topics. Frankly, as a physicist myself I hate some of the main QM article. It is not suitable as it is for an encyclopaedia article. It's written by phsicists for physicists, not for explanation. I am not convinced of merging it with simple:Quantum mechanics. That is for simple English, I was trying to use straightforward English and expand in some detail on the ideas, not quite the same thing. However, it would be better than nothing. I do NOT agree with abandoning it totally however. Remember Feynman? "If you can't explain it to a beginner you don't understand it". So, who understands the topic well enough to explain it, not regurgitate advanced textbooks? Instead of giving out, why not contribute? Paulc1001 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quantum mechanics is the most fundamental scientific theory known to man. It underpins modern science and technology and even provides us with a blueprint for reality itself. And yet it has been said that if you think you understand it, you quite clearly don't. [14] Applying "If you can't explain it to a beginner you don't understand it" to Quantum Mechanics is an example being clueless with regard to this subject. WAS 4.250 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice selective quote there WAS! You're trotting out cliched marketing-speak to decide on a serious topic. If the subject is writing articles that explain a topic, then it's not me who is clueless. Wanna try being a bit more constructive? Paulc1001 03:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had. Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics. Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy You propose to provide a simplified version of mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles by leaving out the math concepts that describe the behaviors? You propose to provide a simplified version of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics even when the experts can't? Or are you proposing others do this? It would be both useful and instructive for you to try writing a simplied version of quantum entangement (one tiny part of quantum mechanics). Posturing is easy. I encourage you to use quantum entangement to prove me wrong with an example of the type of treatment you propose for quantum mechanics. I hope this is contructive enough for you. If not, tell me why. I encourage your curiosity in quantum mechanic; I just think you should learn more about it before you jump into this task you have set for yourself. I believe the task as you have framed it will necesarily be a failure. I note that the content you have not deleted in the article is more along the lines of "history of QM". Another suggestion would be to write an article on that - the history of QM. I'm sure that would be a smashing success (if the article does not already exist - I haven't looked). Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • WAS, while I appreciate you are being slightly more constructive I believe you are missing the point - several times! If you would stop pasting in quotes from other people for 5 minutes it might help. (1) You seem to miss (more than once) where I wrote I happen to be an (ex-)physicist, and I spent a decade in the 'trade'. I have postgraduate qualifications from a prominent Physics Dept. I say this NOT as a boast; there are many many better-qualified physicists than me here and many better able to explain the topic to a specialist audience than I am. Rather I say this as a point of information, and also that my 'curiosity' is quite well-sated, thank you. I have already learned and forgotten more about QM than many people will ever learn (not referring to you, I don't know how much you know, you only ever paste in other's words). Actually this is an issue, I have forgotten lots of detail over the years, but I did learn it in the first place. I have never said I was the only or the best person to do this task, I'm certainly not the best-qualified physicist here, but I'm probably one of the better explainers, I would like to believe. (2) This whole idea all was meant (by me) to be a work that would take quite some time, probably by several people. You seem to think a fully-formed article just jumps out. I happened to get swamped with work recently, which is why I was not able to get back to the article, which was unfortunate timing! Maybe the article could be 'hibernated' or hidden while it's worked on - is there a way to do this??? That's why I tried to get people to contribute to the discussion, not the article itself! I know I won't personally able to do much for the next few weeks, so I would be ok with mothballing it somehow. (3) I believe it is perfectly possible to explain concepts with minimal maths. There is a grand total of 1 equation in A Brief History of Time. Of course this 'explanation' is not a full QM treatise. What I am suggesting is more like can we get across the ideas to an intelligent person who doesn't have a degree in physics. (4) These quotes you love are really not relevant, sorry. (5) On quantum entanglement, I would say that some of the article here is actually not that bad, barring the equations. It wouldn't be a terrible starting point at explaining the matter simply. (6) I think, contrary to you, that there are many decent attempts to explain QM ideas in an accessible manner, and I think it is possible to attempt to explain the nauture of the problems with it too. Of course I never said I could resolve all its problems, where did you get that from? But I can SPEAK about them! You really miss this point. What part of "non-technical introduction to QM" don't you get? I never said I was going to clear up the subject entirely, that's laughable. (7) What was left after deleting was just my own quick text, frankly that's all I want to stand over. I happen to agree with you strongly that much of the text submitted to the article was inadequate. What I did yesterday was just to revert to what I have had the time to do and called it a stub which seemed prudent. It's really very little as I'm well aware of. It wasn't meant to be a history per se, but an introduction to an article. I agree that a History of QM could be a fine article. Incidentally, I was about to remove the link from the main QM article to this, but I see it's been done, good! It can be put back later if warranted.(8) If we did a quick poll I think it is not me who would be described as posturing in this discussion. You are making great sweeping statements about how everything is impossible, pasting in quotes from other people all the time, so enough! If you can't/won't contribute then butt out and go contribute where you are able. Your confrontational tone is winning you no friends in this matter, and makes that quote on your user page hilarious! I was originally motivated by a desire to explain and invite collaboration; not to abuse, ridicule, and obfuscate. So, sorry WAS, I will reply to you no more, I have not the time or energy so don't bother trying to rise me any further. I have a life outside here. Take care. Paulc1001 19:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is not simple English in terms of vocabulary, but this is a simplified version of an article which might be appropriate as an introduction to a Wikibooks article on the subject. There are many, including wikibooks:Physics in English:Quantum Mechanics and wikibooks:Modern Physics:Quantum Mechanics:Contents, which need development. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, perhaps rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners - definitely useful, and definitely necessary, given how technical our articles on physics get. I know that on a recent assignment I had in one of my astronomy courses, Special relativity for beginners was very useful for me (without suggesting that I didn't have the English vocabulary needed to understand the subject, like a page on Simple might), and we should continue doing that with other topics in physics. --Idont Havaname 02:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners, per above suggestion. Special relativity for beginners seems to establish precedent (as an aside, that seems like a really useful article). --L33tminion (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners, per above suggestion. - I'm the one that put the delete on this article. At that time it was unbelievably bad and no contributor seemed to have competance to do the job. Since then Paulc1001 (the creator of the article) has deleted the bad stuff and retained not QM-simplified but QM-intro or QM-beginners stuff. Therefore keeping the article but renaming it to QM - for beginners as suggested above seems to me to be the best option at this point. WAS 4.250 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - provide a link to any "simplified" articles in the external links section of the main article if necessary. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners, per WAS. -- SCZenz 00:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps rename. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikibooks, but at least do not transwiki to simple:Quantum mechanics. Wikipedia does not fork articles into different levels of expertise, does it? If quantum mechanics is incomprehensible, it should be rewritten to appeal to the average reader, perhaps with a "lighter" introduction. Karol 07:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expand this article and improve the main QM article. I'm against renaming this article to "QM for beginners" at this time, because the main QM article is already close to such an article. That one only looks technical because it covers a lot of QM subjects in just a few pages, but it's really nothing more than what you can find in popular QM books in a condensed form.Count Iblis 12:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not rename, since QM for beginners implies the beginning of a journey. Most of the readers of QM simplified will not be beginners, and will have no desire to begin a journey into the depths QM. Anyway, the article, as it currently stands, is a good start; it just needs to be expanded. linas 22:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Morning[edit]

Doesn't appear from the article that it meets the standards of WP:MUSIC. I'm hitting a brick wall with google because it appears there is a song of the same name. Geni 20:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nothing turns up on AMG, so probably vanity. PacknCanes 22:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 15:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes, Ace of Base[edit]

Ace-of-Base-cruft - I don't believe this deserves its own article. I don't think this shoud be merged to the main Ace of Base article, either, for fear of clogging it up. Delete CLW 14:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless cruft. / Peter Isotalo 15:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ace of Base. If that would clutter too much, then keep, or merge with a discography of Ace of Base in sections. Trollderella 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ace-of-base-cruft - now there's a word I didn't expect to ever see. Delete, unencyclopaedic and not worth merging - a lot of singles have remixes on their B-side, and a list of every single one for every artist with such singles would clutter up a huge number of articles. --Last Malthusian 16:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cruft. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ace-of-base-cruft. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, discographies are encyclopedic, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but this isn't a discography. Discographies include singles, albums, and possibly compilations, not remixes. The excessive length of this list and its extremely low information-to-data ratio (so which is better: the Armand's 'British Nites' Remix of Lucky Love or Armand's 'British Nite' Mix Edit?) illustrate why that is. As for your other argument, I see your WP:NOT paper and raise you one WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. --Last Malthusian 10:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This is a type of list that should be kept. It can be maintained, it involves otherwise difficult to get information, and is likely too large to merge anyways. --badlydrawnjeff 13:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Apparently I was wrong, now that Qirex added the info with ease to the discography page, no reason to duplicate. Delete. --badlydrawnjeff 13:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I just spent half an hour cleaning up this exact same information over at Discography of Ace of Base. This is a useless, hard-to-read duplicate. --Qirex 02:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Normally, I'd relist but this just doesn't have a prayer. -Splashtalk 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rosey Brown (band)[edit]

Local band with a myspace page. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC requirements. No allmusic.com entry. Delete. Gamaliel 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rumored Singles, Ace of Base[edit]

IMO, this doesn't deserve its own article. I'm not even convinced that it should be merged into the Ace of Base article, as it's mostly built on rumour and suposition, and thus unverifiable. Hence, delete CLW 14:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Running Away[edit]

Obvious nonsense -- I don't think there's any chance of anyone actually getting a serious article out of this. -- Captain Disdain 10:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Uncyclopedia, I think this author got lost on their way there. GarrettTalk 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I love how he compares himself to Jesus, though. -- Kjkolb 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletee Vanity page. --Clay Collier 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh maharshi[edit]

Vanity created by User:Santosh Maharshi. "Santosh Maharshi" gets 2 google hits. Punkmorten 16:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity nn-bio.--Isotope23 16:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not nn-bio, but not n either. — brighterorange (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, prefereably speedy Tintin 19:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 11:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sexiest and most violent nintendo games[edit]

Unformated POV listing - not notable nor encyclopedic. Vsmith 03:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Delete It's not even wikified.--Atlantima 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Vsmith 03:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete it or make it tomorrow's featured article. -Silence 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal POV essay, if that. MCB 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this is a verifiable list released by the Queen of England. Qaz (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I wasn't expecting a great article when I clicked on this, but it's even worse than expected: it isn't even list/bullet formatted and it doesn't even seperate the sexy and violent games! Not to mention that these aren't even games by Nintendo, just games released on Nintendo hardware! There's definitely something encyclopedic to be said about Nintendo's censorship policy, which is covered in its own section of the Nintendo article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless, impossible to make NPOV CLW 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Andrew Lenahan - Starblind... least they could do is format their cruft.--Isotope23 20:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Such a trash would dererve to be speedied automatically. Pavel Vozenilek 00:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind; usually I would say it couldn't be deleted for being POV, but here the title alone is POV. (The list is also poorly formatted, but that is not a reason for deletion; AfD != cleanup.) --Idont Havaname 02:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like an alphabetical list of the Nintendo 64, Game Boy Advance, and GameCube games with ESRB ratings of "M for Mature". I don't think this is something we need, even under a proper title. --Yggdrasil 04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shasted[edit]

Semi-nonsensical slang dicdef The Land 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. The Land 14:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Please Elaborate. 144.160.98.31 15:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Firstly Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article is a dictionary definition. Furthermore, IMV it's not a place for articles on every form of drunkenness in existence - if we include this one we also need Trashed, Trolleyed, Wasted, Hammered, Mandibled, Cucumbered and any other term made up by a drunken student to describe their state. In any case, to have articles we need to have verifiable statements about what these words are - are there any press cuttings that talk about 'being shasted'? Essentially it's a load of immature nonsense of no encyclopedic interest and we should delete it. The Land 15:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wikipedia serves as much of a "dictionary purpose" as a dictionary. See:

All of these words are either slang or don't exist and aren't used in popular culture (e.g. "Subcrawl"). Also, the majority of these entries are definitions with a questionable "history" attached.

      • All of those articles are a good bit more encyclopedic than Shasted. If you can trace its origin back to 1696 or get a line of toys named after it then it may well be encyclopedic. As it stands, it ain't. The Land 15:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a student, actually far from it. I first heard this term come from a parent of a drunk driver during a speech. I don't have the text from the speech but if I did, I would readily supply it. I'm glad you're confident in your abilities to judge maturity, but maybe you should actually read some of the content in the wikipedia. 144.160.98.31 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete slangdef. And I think we should probably get rid of beer goggles too. --Trovatore 16:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CLW 16:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dicdef... and can't verify this word isn't a neologism. --Isotope23 16:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable slang. Only wasted and trashed are notable in my opinion. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even notable words aren't supposed to get dictionary-definition articles. BTW neither wasted nor trashed is about terms for drunkenness. --Trovatore 07:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a dicdef of a neologism (apparently no relevant Google hits -- it's apparently a surname, though). Since nobody is using "shasted" in writing to mean drunk, it doesn't even belong on the List of slang terms for drunkenness. We don't need encyclopedia articles about different slang terms that all mean drunk; the encyclopedic article about the condition of being drunk is Drunkenness which deals with the issue of being trashed, wasted, hammered, and any other thing you can call it. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sky High Stuntman a board of Gamefaqs.com[edit]

Vanity page. 202.156.6.54 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Damn, beat me by about a minute in listing it. Totally pointless vanity. Plasma 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable and vanity. CambridgeBayWeather 00:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small, low impact forum entry. Joyous (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some dudes who figure that Wikipedia is safer than a can of spray paint for their graffiti. Geogre 12:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no information whatsoever, vanity. Jesse 13:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless CLW 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Monkbel 16:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page serves no real purpose. Vanity. 82.13.188.101 16:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the reasons above. DJ Clayworth 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 15:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somewhat notable (3k hits on Google) but vanity nevertheless. -- ReyBrujo 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hodges[edit]

  • Appears to be self-propaganda, original research, and article itself admits the claims have not been responded to by the wider AI community Average Earthman 08:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research by a non-notable vanity poster. Usrnme h8er 09:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Usrnme h8er. Dlyons493 Talk 09:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Qaz (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kid with blog, delete. The Land 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost gave up searching, but the last minute proved fruitful. self propaganda? hardly. Post from 2003. (unsigned by 209.42.44.132)
  • Delete, OR. -feydey 23:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. vanity page, original research. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reconmmend this page be transwikied to wikisource for further development, under the title "super calculator" --209.42.44.132 03:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and unencyclopedic. *drew 23:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Key Information Enterprise Repository (SKIER)[edit]

Original research/ meaningless proprietary jargon from [15]. Related copy and paste copyvios from this company have been repeatedly created.

  • D Fawcett5 17:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what????--Kewp (t) 18:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a promotional tool. Friday (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kjl 21:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's some kind of jargon, without enough information to give a clear idea of exactly what it means, and the part with "...structurally in harmony with how our species naturally interacts..." seems non-NPOV to me, possibly taken from a marketing brochure for a product or service that uses this technique, whatever it is. *Dan T.* 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read it three times and my brain still comes back with wha. --hydnjo talk 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marketing jargon with no useful content. Martyman 05:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK guess I shouldn't bother to flesh out these facts Ckuelzow

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal Monkey[edit]

This is a vanity page Kjl 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page started out as a vanity page but has since been updated so that it is not. Nevertheless, it should still be deleted as it remains non-notable slangdef/gamecruft (wikipedia is WP:NOT a gametips site, or dictionary). Also, it is unverifiable - article mentions term coining from Medal of Honor and custom gametypes in Halo 2; a google search for "Suicidal Monkey" "Medal of Honor" returns 4 (bogus) links, as does a google search of "Suicidal Monkey" "Halo 2". Kjl 13:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not. Merge into First person shooter. PacknCanes 22:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) <-Strikeout was removed by User:68.254.164.29. I put it back. Kjl 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you heard of Kerrigan Joseph before? Also, if you google "Suicidal monkey" rocket or "Suicidal monkey" rpg, etc. it seems pretty clear (to me, anyways) that "Suicidal Monkey" is just some guy's handle. Kjl 23:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll defer to people who know more about this than I do. I retract my earlier vote and abstain. PacknCanes 23:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the gamecruft, it burns. Merge it into some sort of pwnage tactics article if you must, otherwise get rid of it. WP:NOT a gametips site. Also, hopelessly POV. nae'blis (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slangdef (with a gamecruft chaser). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 04:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the following redirects should be deleted: 5u1c1d4l m0nk3y 5u1c1d47 m0nk3y. Kjl 03:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard of this before and have used it. Just delete the reference to its alleged originator.
    • Don't change other people's votes. User:68.254.164.29 took out the strike-through tag on PacknCanes's "merge" comment. Also, this IP's only contributions have been to create and modify the Suicidal Monkey page, its redirects, and links to the page from Leet. Kjl 17:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • abstain I think that the person writting this must have know the originator so he put in his name, but i have heard this used by my friends before. I think that if someone removes the originators name it will be fine. Plus, if you want to remove this page then remove the woot page and all other definition pages of leet. they are all in the main leet page as definitions so if the final vote is to delete this page then delete all the leet definition pages.
  • Abstain I agree with the above person. I have used it and I think that the person writting just wanted their name out or somethin'. and with the deletion- then delete woot and other leet words own pages.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev[edit]

Blatant vanity, google gives plenty of hits, but they seem to be about a politician and a yoga guru that share the same name. They may be notable, this young man is not. Usrnme h8er 08:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no sufficient claim of influence or notability to warrant an article. Average Earthman 09:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Sukhdev is an Indian freedom fighter. This article needs to be replaced by his biography Tintin 13:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syncretist Movement[edit]

Entirely non-notable and possibly non-existent literary movement which I suspect of being vanity advertising for the writers involved. Google hits for Syncretist Movement as a literary, as opposed to religious, movement seem to all derive from this article. No references are provided to enable verification. One of the authors added large claims for this movement to Poetry earlier today, which is how I ended up here. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Google for Syncretism rather than Syncretist Movement. Try adding some authors such as Derrida. There's thousands of hits in French alone e.g [16] Dlyons493 Talk 14:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a major movement, and any number of inappropriate edits have been made on behalf of the four people mentioned in that article. I just reverted Michael Palmer, an article on a major poet which had been rewritten to be about the G. Michael Palmer mentioned in the Synretic Movement article. Wikipedia is not a space for advertising. Chick Bowen 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unverifiable, unless references are provided. Paul August ☎ 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn as a movement in its own right. Maybe just redirect it to Syncretism which is what anyone searching on this probably really wants? Dlyons493 Talk 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a redirect is necessary, Dlyons. No one would call Syncretism a "movement," and the adjective is syncretic anyway. Chick Bowen 04:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't feel strongly about this either way - one could read Syncretist as a noun in apposition which is what I mentally did when reading the article first. Dlyons493 Talk 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: does anyone else feel that the four "leaders" should have their articles listed too? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought about that: G. Michael Palmer has an anon doing inappropriate things with the Michael Palmer page but it is an anon user. Jimmy Nil Fishhawk seemed pretty nn to me but hardly seemed worth trying to get through an Afd. No evidence of a conspiracy by them. So on balance I think just get rid of this. Dlyons493 Talk 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TCF_Bank_Stadium[edit]

Smith03 19:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)The stadium may be built sometime down the road, ( I hope it will be) but at this point it is just a proposal so if/when it is built page can be redone. Other stadium proposal pages have been delete so to be consistent it should be deleted.[reply]

  • Keep, big, verfiable project. Obviously various deals have been done to get it underway so this would be worth recording even if it never gets built. Kappa 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The project itself is notable, and touches several issues. --Vsion 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Solid information on a major project. CalJW 09:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and Vision. Johntex\talk 21:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's emblematic of most (seemingly perennial) stadium proposals made in Minnesota. Should the proposal not make it, the article itself could be merged into the Metrodome article. Until we're sure it's dead, I say keep it for now. (I'm just glad I have the X.) :D — wheresmysocks 23:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower hablamé 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team rehab[edit]

Non-notable group of people who play Magic. Possible vanity Johntex\talk 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that the article makes no claim of notability Johntex\talk 00:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.
Sorry forgot to sign. CambridgeBayWeather 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and propose "gaming groups" as a new CSD. Jkelly 00:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps some kind of common sense speedy delete rule would work. Friday (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --MONGO 02:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn Pete.Hurd 04:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete gamecruft, nn, vanity GTBacchus 05:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete AGREE: gamecruft, nn, vanity --Daniel Lotspeich 06:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete if possible. cruftiness, vanity, and non-notability. Jesse 13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. could be speedy delete, but too much info and wikified.. --Monkbel 16:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete They cannot compete with MOLTAR's power anyway. Shrapnelmoon 9:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Great gastrobello[edit]

Hoax, no Google hits. Ilmari Karonen 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-existent fictional character. Ilmari Karonen, please use "subst:" when adding templates to avoid technical problems (I had to fix one so that I could vote). Andrew pmk | Talk 00:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable --Apyule 07:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Titoxd(?!?) 03:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Monkey and the Hunter[edit]

This looks like an article created just for a high school physics thought experiment. silsor 06:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've revamped it, keeping little besides the title and the external links. It looks respectable to me now, though not particularly inspired. Anville 10:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic of the article still isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. silsor 17:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks Anville. Kappa 16:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pleasant rewrite. Jesse 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now an interesting little article thanks to Anville. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Adventures of Felix the Cat[edit]

This article is about a television series that did not exist as best I can tell. Neither The Big Cartoon Database nor The Internet Movie Database has heard of it, and Google turns up only Wikipedia as a hit. The same anon has added this series to the main Felix the Cat article more than once, and I've reverted each time. See also the related nomination for Original Adventures of Felix the Cat. BrianSmithson 23:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete either hoax or nonnotable version. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably an NN repackage of the original --Rogerd 03:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is plausible that there was a 1991 VHS relaese of old Felix episodes to catch ahold of buzz concerning the Felix movie that year, this has to be either a hoax or a NN repackage of the made for TV cartoons. Caerwine 04:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE by FCYTravis on 20:53, 11 October 2005. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound of Animals Fighting[edit]

Re-created by an anon, copying their bio off their myspace page. See below from late September when I posted this on AFD and it was deleted. Kertrats —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy of course. It's already tagged. (I fixed the AFD nom since it was ending up merged with another dicussion.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to block from recreation. --CastAStone 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TheOtherNet[edit]

Google search for "TheOtherNet" produces about 100 results. Alexa has no data on http://theothernet.org (linked to from article). Previously put up for speedy deletion; another user removed the tag, saying "put it up for vfd," but did not do so himself, so here it is. Delete. Joel7687 06:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: KaffeineNet on Google produces 228 hits, which probably most likely makes it unnotable. -x42bn6 Talk 07:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn CLW 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Edstrom[edit]

A really long vanity/hoax page. Joyous (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 02:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pity the article's manpower couldn't be harvested elsewhere. Vanity, and some rubbish in #Trivia. -x42bn6 Talk 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN else Delete Jesse 14:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity? attack? can't say I care... CLW 15:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. feydey 22:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. The preamble here is identical to the preamble in the category, and there is almost no other content. G4 demands only substantial identicality, not outright identicality. -Splashtalk 01:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totalitarian dictators[edit]

Idiosyncratic POV reproduction of the contents in the deleted Category:Totalitarian dictators The contents were a problem in the category namespace, and they are a problem too in the main namespace. 172 | Talk 23:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently 172 does not like the term totalitarian dictator.
FYI Simon P nominated the category for deletion. In addition to myself, CalJW, Jiang, Haham hanuka, Wikiwizzy, Shanes, Tony Sidaway , Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, mikkalai, SqueakBox, Mirv, CdC, Nat Krause, Jdforrester, Ziggurat, Modster, RustyCale, Jobe6, Alai, Aldux, siafu, Sean Curtin, Zscout370, fvw, John Kenney, FayssalF, and Str1977 supported deletion. [17] Quit trying to make me the issue. I'm irrelevant as to whether or not the article totalitarian dictators gets deleted. 172 | Talk 10:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
he also does not like following the rules. The vote to delete Category:Totalitarian dictators had been closed without a consensus, so that category should still be around. 172 removed the notice of closing and then proceeded to solicit votes to support his position, after supporters of the category thought the voting was over. Consult with the admins on that deletion for the details of his behavior. This is an article, far more notable than many articles, and not only is it different than a category, there is different text than that which was voted down in the category. I had prepared this text for the category page, after there was no consensus for deletion of the page, and the voting had been closed, in order to improve the category so that it would answer 172s objections and do better should there be another attempt to delete the category. 172 of course, will deny that it addresses his objections, but that doesn't matter, many others will see that it takes the stings out of his assertions that this cannot be implimented in a NPOV manner. Instead of pressing for arbcom review of 172s behavior, and a restoration of the catagory due to the voting irregularies he fostered. I was just going to wait a month and create it again. In the mean time this is as legitimate as any article. Unfortunately, a lot of work by several editors was destroyed during the vote for catagory deletion process by 172s behavior, since he was busy deleting the category from all articles while the vote was still going on and had to be admonished. As far as I know there is no easy central place to recover those totalilitarian dictator candidates. In summary:
  1. the original category should still be around and was only defeated due to irregularities by 172 after the voting had been closed without a consensus
    The criteria for deciding whether to close a debate on CfD is not set in stone. One editor did not see a consensus, and moved to close. I asked for more time, and reopened the debate, given that the trend was moving toward the delete side once a more clear explanation of why the category was inherently POV was made in the middle of the voting period. With more time, a consensus was established for deletion; and then an administrator eventually deleted the article without my involvement. All the attacks on me are just meant to distract everyone from the fact that there is a consensus against creating an article along the lines of "totalitarian dictators."172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. so that event is irrelevant to making this a candidate for speedy deletion, this article is notable in its own right
  3. this article is different than a category
  4. the text in this article is different than that in the category, at least at the time of the voting and irregularities, so its merits are different, and its relation to the previous irregular events has been broken
  5. the changes in the text are intended to address 172s objections, not his satisfaction, but perhaps to the satisfaction of others
    My objections aren't so special. What about the objections of the dozens of other people who came out in favor of deleting the category? 172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 172 should be banned from editing the article, since he cannot edit it good faith, he has already concluded that it cannot be made workable, so any edits are likely to be as disruptive as his other behavior has been
    Pot kettle. 172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. this is the seventh point, if there are any fewer than 7, beware, 172 may have deleted any he didn't like. Admins should check the history every time he edits. If they had known this before, the category would still be around.
    You are being really disingenuous. You have no evidence that I deleted any votes. That's because I did not delete any votes. Yet I don't expect you to apologize when you eventually find out that I did not tamper with the CfD vote in question, nor any vote ever for that matter. 172 | Talk 11:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you deleted votes, but reopening a vote that people had seen closed is worse than deleting votes. So then you could run a campaign without opposition, like the one party systems. You never really opened the vote, that wasn't your right, you only had the power to disguise the fact that it had been closed. You then contacted a half dozen or more likely voters for your position, they voted the way you intended. And then the finally the vote had been open long enough for you, just three more days with no notice to those who in good faith thought the issue was over. You should shouldn't be trusted with editing powers, you have no sense of perspective. You couldn't wait another month to try again or let the editors of the category prove themselves to you. --Silverback 11:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Silverback 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly implied it: beware, 172 may have deleted any he didn't like. Admins should check the history every time he edits. If they had known this before, the category would still be around. Shame on you for making baseless accusations without any evidence. Further, I did nothing improper in reopening the debate. Reopening the debate for more time was not a violation of the spirit of the process. You are correct in pointing out that more people came out in favor of deleting the category after reopening. However, in contrast to voting in a single party state, leaving more time for discussion also gave the authors of the category more time to state their case and persuade people to see things in a different light. The fact that this did not happen is a reflection of the consensus to delete a category that the vast majority of editors consider unworkable and inherently POV. 172 | Talk 11:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the spirit of the process. The reason a supermajority consensus is required for deletion is not to frustrate the majority, it is to protect the minority. You destroyed that spirit by immoral, irregular and abusive use of powers and to get your own selfish way, right away. Yes, you only used powers that anyone of us could've used. You seem to think that having a power gives you the right to use it. Even wiki editing powers are a trust to be used and not abused. The voting was closed, anyone of us could have reopened it according to your reasoning. You should think about how universalizable that type of behavior is.--Silverback 11:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same nonsense over and over again isn't going to make it correct. First, please review Wikipedia:Be bold. No one has any reason to get upset because I reopened a discussion for more feedback; after all, more intelligent feedback is always better than less feedback. Second, please review Wikipedia is not a democracy. According to the administrator who deleted the article, a consensus was established in favor of deletion. I did not make that determination. By this stage, protecting the minority is not an issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; so it cannot disregard encyclopedic standards in order to appease a small minority of users. 172 | Talk 12:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I implied that you might do it. After doing what you did, why not suspect that you could also delete votes? Just exactly how do you draw your lines of ethical behavior? You had wonderful ends in your view, and those justified the deceptive means that you used. --Silverback 12:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not deceive anyone. There was no need to check the page history to find out that I was the one who reopened the debate. I said so on multiple pages, and informed the administrator who had earlier closed the debate right away on his user talk page. By the way, I implied that you might do it is as weasely of a response as they come. With no evidence that I have ever deleted other people's comments, you had no business making the insinuation. That insinuation would be tantamount to (say) me saying that you might have wife whom you beat on the basis of not seeing any evidence falsifying the claim. 172 | Talk 12:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Silverback's attempt to make me out to be the bogyman is a diversion from the fact that there was a consensus to delete the category. Yes, I reopened the debate. This did nothing more than allow more time for more feedback and more perspective in order for a consensus to be reached. And a consensus was reached. SimonP nominated the category for deletion. Deletion was supported by CalJW, Jiang, Haham hanuka, Wikiwizzy, Shanes, Tony Sidaway , Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, mikkalai, SqueakBox, Mirv, CdC, Nat Krause, Jdforrester, Ziggurat, Modster, RustyCale, Jobe6, Alai, Aldux, siafu, Sean Curtin, Zscout370, fvw, John Kenney, FayssalF, Str1977, and me. For some reason or another, Silverback is attempting to vilify me and focus on my reasons for deleting the article. But this is nothing but a red herring to divert attention from the compelling reasons to delete the category brought up by dozens of other editors when a consensus was established. 172 | Talk 10:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe that if this content has previously been deleted, this could be speedied. --CastAStone 23:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previously deleted article is speedy candidate. Pavel Vozenilek 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't sure if it was a speedy candidate. It's not 100% from the content in the category. The "list of totalitarian dictators" in the article is new. Even with the modfifications, is it still a speedy candidate? 172 | Talk 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete --Rogerd 03:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Nacional del Callao[edit]

Move to Spanish or appropriate language Wikipedia. Delete --AllyUnion (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Translate, cleanup, keep. seems like a notable Peruvian university. --Trovatore 07:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyvio. It can be recreated later. -- Kjkolb 07:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • copyvio from where? If you have the URL you can tag it for speedy with {{db-copyvio}}. --Trovatore 07:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's copyvio from [18] 132.248.196.4 07:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it can be speedied because it is not from a commerical content provider - a company that sells the content that has been copied, like a newspaper or encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb
  • Keep and cleanup. User Trovatore has translated this and I have added appropriate stub categories for Peru stub and university stub. The translation should alleviate the copyvio problem and I think the general concensus is to keep teartiary education institutions. Capitalistroadster 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the new version. -- Kjkolb 10:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep translation. Average Earthman 11:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Piccadilly 11:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep translation. CLW 15:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably still a copyvio. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can get rid of copyright just by translating something. I'm not personally a big fan of copyright but I think we all understand that WP has to be careful about it. --Trovatore 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am a lawyer, and you can, Trovatore, as long as the translation is not verbatim. Facts themselves are not copyrightable. You translated the thing, so, if concerned, make your translation a bit "freer". Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think your advice is appropriately cautious. Do you practice IP law? A translation is a derivative work, and copyright can still apply. This is explicitly stated in U.S. Title 17. A non-verbatim translation does not provide an end around copyright law. This article is very short and is limited to factual material and so provides very little opportunity "artistic expression" so it may be OK in this particular instance, but I think your suggestion is simply wrong in general. Quale 00:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Briefly, I'll remind you that it is the burden of the copyright holder to prove infringement. For an article of a small size, or for one -- like this one also -- whose nature is a bare recitation of essential details (as with a newspaper item in brief), the act of translating freely would obscure sufficiently the origin of the material such that proof of infringement would be practically impossible. You are correct, and I would never intend, to apply my advice to a novel, or even a poem, or any other substantially original work of any length. However, I maintain the value of proposition advanced for all translated, properly encyclopedic stubs. So, I suppose that my advice would be incautious if anyone were unfortunate enough to think that it applied to Wikibooks, Wikisource, or an extended analytic article here. Given the context, though, I'll stand behind my advice. If you care to continue this dispute, my talk page is always open. :) Xoloz 03:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this is important, so I'll answer briefly here. You write, "Given the context, though, I'll stand by my advice." Here's the context:
            • Probably still a copyvio. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think you can get rid of copyright just by translating something [emphasis mine]. I'm not personally a big fan of copyright but I think we all understand that WP has to be careful about it. --Trovatore 16:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • And this is your response:
            • I am a lawyer, and you can, Trovatore, as long as the translation is not verbatim. -- Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • In context, your response says that you can get rid of copyright by translating something as long as the translation is not verbatim. This is simply not true. You are correct to point out that a recitation of facts is not copyrightable in the U.S. (caution may be needed here too, as I believe this is not the case in some other jurisdictions), but this has absolutely nothing to do with translation—translation is a red herring here. Your advice relied on unstated assumptions that are not true in general, even in the context of Wikipedia articles. If you meant to say that copyright shouldn't be a problem for this specific translation, you should have said so explicitly. I have seen translated pages on wikipedia that are likely copyvios, and I tagged one such just a few days ago. Quale 09:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply is on your talk page. Xoloz 14:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is now irrelevant in any case. I have made a number of edits to the English translation, if a few more editors write a few more lines of text, hardly anything of the original Spanish-language text will remain in any event.--Nicodemus75 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep translation. Xoloz 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless copyvio can be substantiated. Jesse 18:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is no longer copyvio. This is one of the significant universities in Lima, I have visited it. Irrespective of all other concerns, it deserves an article on WP. It should probably be moved to National University of Callao.--Nicodemus75 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just "Callao", or "The Callao"? --Trovatore 02:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is just "Callao". Callao is a technically an extra-provincial district in Peru, but in practice it is another suburb of the Greater Lima area.--Nicodemus75 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems main problems have been addressed, though some improvement is still needed. --rob 22:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the translated one please we can always use the {{notenglish}} next time Yuckfoo 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a post-secondary educational institution it is indisputably inherently notable. Silensor 07:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup and expand. Concur w/Silensor per noteability. KillerChihuahua 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into Hobo Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Unsafe camp[edit]

Nonsense linkspam. This user has posted links to this site in several other articles pretaining to cryptozoology, and in the cryptozoology article itself. --Aurochs 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I had alredy nominated the article for speedy deletion (see here) but the user (152.22.18.16) removed it (see here); but i guess it's better if it goes through the afd process rather than being speedy deleted.--Carabinieri 13:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe some self promotion but not entirely. There is merit regarding folklore and history. Sorry about the removal of your process flag. Just learning. --User:152.22.18.16 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see what Bigfoot has to do with hobo camps. The article itself has the same name as the linked image, so I'm not abandoning my spam argument yet. --Aurochs 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does Bigfoot have to do with hobo camps? I'm not sure either but my best search for a hobo campsite symbol illustration yielded the link. I just thought it was a nice illustration of a hobo camp and hobo symbols.User:152.22.18.16 17:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You also added this link to Cryptozoology, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, and Jackalope. None of those articles are in particular need of new images. Further, this article reads as if it was an explanation of all hobo signs, while the "unsafe area" symbol is only one of them. --Aurochs 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Granted, the hobo signs pages have merit, but not one of the Hobo signs pages makes an attempt to illustrate what an [Unsafe Camp] could be. --User:152.22.18.16 20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do we need an illustration of this? Any sane reader (and probably most insane readers) could imagine what might constitute an unsafe campsite. And why do we need an entire article devoted to one sign? --Aurochs 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually those links added were to a slightly different site I believe. There was a whole array of these things they call [cryptids] and some other interesting illustrations. Sorry I just thought there were some things on that page wholly unaddressed by any other single page. --User:152.22.18.16 20:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Examples? Maybe you could make articles on the criptids in question? --Aurochs 21:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily nonsense. Citing hobo symbols link. --User:152.22.18.16 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, I simply feel that deleting this article would result in a huge loss for Wikipedia. The hobo culture is often overlooked in texts...please do not make the same mistake here. --User:24.167.152.21 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ¿Que? --Aurochs 02:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Que buena informaccion a saber.--user:huckit 09:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (user's first edit)[reply]
  • Keep it. --User:huckit (this edit actually by 24.148.240.33 10:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Hobo symbols or Hobo signs. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this information into the hobo symbols section that already exists in the hobo article.--Isotope23 16:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Isotope23, else delete Jesse 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Isotope23 or delete. CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Registered jack. -Splashtalk 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USOC (cabling)[edit]

This is only a one-line definition of Universal Service Order Code, which is already covered at registered jack.  –radiojon 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • So redirect it; no need to bother AfD. --Trovatore 19:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's superfluous and unnecessary, which is why I nominated it.  –radiojon 21:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect --Rogerd 04:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep DES (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Repin[edit]

Non-notable artist. Jake013 10:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You play a Stradivarius, you've done something right. Anville 10:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad-faith nom from a user who seems to have a vendetta against violinists (a violist, perhaps)? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. -- Kjkolb 11:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, and someone please stop User:Jake013 now. -- Egil 12:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I wrote this article because I'd come across so many mentions of Repin in the press it was clear we needed one for him. Chick Bowen 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. According to article, he has made several albums meaning he meets WP:music. User Jake013 should study these guidelines carefully before making further nominations. BTW is there an admin passing by who can close this vote. Capitalistroadster 16:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. DES (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vagos (gang)[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Value Added Cost Variance[edit]

Original research / meaningless proprietary jargon from [19]. See above Afd as well.

  • D Fawcett5 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a promotional tool. Friday (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kjl 21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would need a lot more in the way of explanation and examples to give any idea of what it's talking about and why it's significant. *Dan T.* 01:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a pitch. --hydnjo talk 03:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless junk. Martyman 05:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Titoxd(?!?) 03:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Watermelon[edit]

Is vampire watermelon even real? Some people are saying that it was invented by Terry Pratchett, but this article doesn't mention him. I can understand about the "vampirism" in inanimate objects, but this is just ridiculous. The Gwai Lo 20:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep, if you had told me when I woke up this morning I would be voting strong keep for a wiki article on Vampire watermelon... As ridiculous as it sounds, it is sourced. [20] loads slowly, but on the righthand page you can see the reference. [21] mentions the context of the research. Pratchett is mentioned at the end of the article as popularizing the motif. I've got to say it stays.--Isotope23 20:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a pure argument from incredulity; we've been through this many times before, and the article has very clear attributions precisely because of previous doubters. -- ChrisO 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. "Is it real?" is not a criterion for deletion, or there would be a fair few articles on deities, games characters, debunked scientific theories and you-name-it up for deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and referenced article on folklore. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Real (albeit very odd) myth. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it doesn't seem to get a lot of unique, non-Wikipedia search results for a supposedly well known myth. Half of the top ten are Wikipedia mirrors and the later pages are similar, many of the other hits are weblogs and forums. No reputable sites jumped out at me. Also, the article admits only one factual reference exists. Articles on myths should be well sourced. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a common problem with the ethnology of obscure or marginalised groups. The Kosovo gypsies were and still are very much a marginalised group in that part of the world - it's quite possible that Tatomir Vukanović, the man who recorded the myth, was the only ethnologist working with Kosovo gypsies at that time. In that sort of situation, you have to look to the reputation of the individual researcher to judge how likely it is that his account is above board. Vukanović does seem to have had a very solid reputation. -- ChrisO 07:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. That's why I added a comment instead of voting delete - I thought it would be unlikely a serious researcher would make it up. However, the ridiculousness of the myth is hard for me to get past. If he didn't make it up, I would suspect that it was a joke, a children's story or made up by another group to make gypsies look foolish. I'll vote keep unless it is disproven. -- Kjkolb 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even serious researchers make mistakes. That's why there's such a thing as peer review. An encyclopedia should only report as fact things which are known to be true, not things which are yet to be disproven. This is not a tabloid. Another option would be to rewrite the article to make it clear that whether or not vampir watermolens are real folklore is unknown, but any efforts to edit the article in that direction are quickly reverted which is why I think deletion is the only valid option at this point. As it stands this article is a huge embarassment to Wikipedia.--198.93.113.49 16:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: I actually remember the discussion on this article from about a year ago. Check out the Talk and the talk archive. At one point we even had images of the pages from the source, albeit externally. I'm glad this is going through AfD so that we can document it in the talk and be done with it...again.  :) Wikibofh 14:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's only one source for this information. All other sources either come directly from the source or from sources that come from that one. See the Talk page for more detail. No one as been able find any corroborating evidence in spite of all the attention that's been given the page. Even things documented in scholarly sources need to be verified before anyone can claim they are true.--198.93.113.49 16:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This article is highly accurate in content. My watermelons at home started to have vampiristic qualities and I didn't know why - until I read this article! It possibly saved my life. People need to be informed on this subject. It is well researched.

  • Strong keep: Have to agree that, given the citations and source information, the article definitely should stay unless positively proven to be false. The fact that it strains one's credulity does not, in itself, represent a reason for deletion. (Thanks, Alex, for introducing me to the legend! You're amazing.)Xlucent 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep out of fear that the Vampire Watermelons will seek revenge for deletion.  BD2412 talk 20:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The consensus is only marginal, but personally, lots of sock puppet "keep" votes weighs in towards a "delete" result for me. — JIP | Talk 16:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanadu[edit]

  • Delete, too specific to be encyclopedic. Citizen Premier 01:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enhance, vanpools are an amazingly underutilised means of preserving the worlds natural resources. This page should be enhanced, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.27.70 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC); all edits have been to the article or this afd[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and too specific. A page on vanpools might be a useful contribution, however. Jacob1207 03:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologism. An excellent example of a vanpool, it would make a good reference for a generic vanpool article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeejay (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC); all edits have been to the article or this afd; also edited 67.171.27.70's comment above[reply]
  • Enhance. Vanadu is a noteworthy vanpool and can be used to further the understanding of vanpools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate Muller (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC); user's only edit[reply]
  • Article added for vanpools. This should help justify a need for the specific vanadu entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrobbins (talk • contribs) 21:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC); user's only edits have been to this article, its afd, his user page, and a vanity article that I'm going to afd shortly -C[reply]
  • Keep. It makes sense to keep the reference to Vanadu as it's meaningful in the context of the article on vanpools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tog (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC); user's only edit[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, ridiculously non-notable, and RickK memorial sockpuppet limit has been radically breached. —Cryptic (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who knew that sockpuppets drove vans? Capitalistroadster 10:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't, they ride in them, y'see, saves petrol. GarrettTalk 11:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all vanpools unless they consist of George W. Bush, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez and Jimbo. All others are non-notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm tempted to click my handy little tab right now, lemme tell ya. And I see I missed the Sockpuppets Synonymous meeting for the third week in a row, if I'm absent twice more I'll lose my membership card! :( Now 'scuse me while I go off and write about how many inches of our ozone layer I've saved by using CFC free deoderant and inhalers... GarrettTalk 11:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but the comments made to keep the article are amusing. -- Kjkolb 11:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into Car/Vanpool, until expanded. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, puppetfest. Xoloz 16:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the line: "Vanadu is one of 700 Vanpools operated by King County in Washington State as part of the rideshare program, the largest of it's kind in the United States." This is a strong argument for it being non-notable.--Isotope23 16:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to carpool as an example, and rename all sockpuppets either sifl, or, if necessary, ollie. Jesse 20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn local vanpool group. There are undoubtedly zillions of these. MCB 22:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable carpool group. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal Tec[edit]

Vanity article. Doesn't seem to satisfy the music guidelines. R. fiend 20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games Lounge[edit]

An inflammatory account of a non-notable AOL chatroom --Anetode 06:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 02:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vova[edit]

Nonsense. 202.156.6.54 00:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ideally this would be a Common sense speedy for no useful content or history. It's not exactly what they mean by patent nonsense, though. I'll try tagging it with a speedy, but it may not work. Friday (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Use {{nonsense}} or similar tag next time. -x42bn6 Talk 01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wee old man's pub[edit]

The article claims that "The term "wee old man's pub" is part of the general lexicon of Scotland"; if this were true, I'd expect a few relevant Google hits, but can't find any that aren't mirrors of Wikipedia or lists of words for search engine positioning boosting. CLW 16:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The phenomenon exists and isn't confined to Scotland. Move to Local pub if you must have an entry. Pilatus 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd support something like local pub or locals pub, which is widely known and is a well-understood usage. (btw, is it the old man or the pub that is "wee" here??) MCB 23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the old man that is "wee" in the usage proposed. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the concept exists but the chosen title is somewhat obscure and not worthy of a separate article. As per Pilatus, some reference to a traditional "local" may be worthy, but in the main Pub article and not on its own. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Titoxd(?!?) 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Bourne[edit]

  • dunno who nominated this, but article appears to be lifted verbatim from an apparently copyrighted site belonging to the New York Times; this this link. So delete for copyvio.---CH (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find the copyvio. This article has the same facts as the link cited, but it has been re-written. Not a copyvio as far as I can tell. --Duk 01:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provided what its says is true, I don't see a problem with it. If you are really feeling twitchy about copyright, reduce the article and put in a link to the NY Times page but don't delete it. There is not much of it but it's a start. (RJP 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you can copyright historical facts, and since I've now rewritten it a bit as well, I'd safely say it's not copyright violation now. KeepAverage Earthman 09:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, modify as needed to remove copyrighted content. He seems notable enough. -- Kjkolb 11:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing the current version to the version that had the copyvio tag, I'd say it has already been modified enough to not be a copyright violation. Average Earthman 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coming up with an early idea for a submersible works for me.--Isotope23 16:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite, it should be a stub. Jesse 20:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jesse. --Apyule 07:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' noitable submariner. Klonimus 00:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (after nearly 2 months of voting) --Celestianpower hablamé 17:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Lake, British Columbia (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete PROPOSE we delete this page and just use the "Williams Lake" (disambiguation) page. We don't need a disambiguation page for each country with a Williams Lake in it. WikiDon 01:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Williams Lake. Mindmatrix 21:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside: in the future, please link to the article you nominated for deletion. I've added the appropriate header.
    • Delete, upon further reflection. Why hasn't this AfD been closed yet? Mindmatrix 13:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Williams Lake & fix links. Luigizanasi 01:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Williams Lake is already a disambiguation page containing all B.C. Williams Lakes; there is nothing to merge. This page is entirely superfluous. -- Corvus 16:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A redirect is not necessary. Zhatt 18:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • October, as per the Julian calendar. --maclean25 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . One dab page for all Williams Lakes worldwide is enough. Grutness...wha? 10:03, 23 January 1846 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. Jesse 20:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete double redirects and double-disambigs. —Michael Z. 2005-10-14 02:03 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwiki to wiktionary. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xirradiate[edit]

Badly named almost-dictdef. Not sure what to do with this. Feels like possible copyvio, but no online matches. No links and only five Google hits, so probably not worth keeping as a redirect. Might almost speedy, but there's that one paragraph of actual content. Not sure if it's worth merging anywhere, and if so, where. Ilmari Karonen 00:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism not in wide use: Google "xirradiate" 5 hits; "xirradiation" 57 hits. The therapeutic use is a type (not the most common) of what is referred to as to as radiation therapy or radiotherapy. MCB 04:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Xirradiation and reformat so as to not be a dicdef. Jesse 14:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per MCB CLW 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. Dicdef.--Isotope23 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary and rename to "X-irradiate". It doesn't seem to be a very common usage, but it is indeed listed on Dictionary.com under "X-irradiate". (The reference to WebMD.com is unverifiable.) The personal essay should be removed and replaced with a statement saying that this is an alternate term for radiation therapy. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary as "x-irradiate" (with hyphen). Appears to be in American Heritage Dictionary. [22] Rd232 16:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuetyue Lomaji[edit]

This nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. (Anon 67.183.182.214's comment on tagging the article was "A non-established script is not suitable for Wikipedia.") —Cryptic (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A quick Google search shows that every article on this system goes back to one person (and there aren't many articles). It's clearly not currently in use anywhere; this is just part of a single individual's promotional efforts. The content is identical with that of the 'Learn Yuetyue Lomaji' site that is linked to- there may be possible copyright problems as well. --Clay Collier 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Clay Collier. -- Kjkolb 11:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Xoloz 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Yukon Legislative Assembly. I have the distinct feeling that I shouldn't try to find out what STFU means. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Legislature Seating Plan[edit]

I vote NO to deletion. Pellaken 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete; we don't even have an article on the Yukon legislature itself, no need for an article containing a pseudo-image of it its seating plan. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as below. Should've looked harder. —Cryptic (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete contextless Dlyons493 Talk 09:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per Cryptic. --Vsion 10:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least Merge, as per new information and comments by MS123. The work is great, no extra charges for using color in Wikipedia. Erh.. can I shamelessly copy the idea? --Vsion 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, we do have an article on the Yukon Legislative Assembly containing this information. While that article should be expanded, this article should be deleted as it is surplus to requirements. Capitalistroadster 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant. see Yukon Legislative Assembly. Jesse 20:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the creator of this page, I wish to see it stay. The Yukon Legislature does have as site just as every other legislature in Canada does. I would also point out that this follows the same format of the other legislatures including; The House of Commons, the Senate, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, BC, and soon to be Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick (as soon as I get around to it). If anyone wonders where this comes from, I recieved the seating plan after contacting the Speaker of the Yukon Legislature Ted Staffen. If anyone wishes to see it, I can upload it. It took quite a while to get this so don't waste it. MS123
  • Merge MS123 has done some good work here, and it should be incorporated into Yukon Legislative Assembly. Ground Zero | t 20:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yukon Legislative Assembly. There's a similar graphic on the Manitoba Assembly page already. CJCurrie 20:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per GeeZed. Zhatt 20:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Yukon Legislative Assembly. Good work, of some interest and relevance. Luigizanasi 02:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa, nelly. MS123 seems to be right; several other Canadian legislative houses (including the House of Commons) have, for some reason, graphic representations of their seating plans as separate articles from the ones about the Houses themselves. See as follows:
  1. Canadian House of Commons seating plan,
  2. British Columbia Legislature Seating Plan,
  3. Alberta Legislature seating plan,
  4. Saskatchewan Legislature Seating Plan,
  5. Ontario Legislative Assembly seating plan.

In most other cases, there's a graphic on the main article. My reactions:

  1. I don't think these should have their own articles; if we keep them at all, they should somehow be made to fit into the legislative house's main article.
  2. The sidescrolling in the House of Commons graphic is unacceptable; no Wikipedia article should ever scroll beyond the existing right border of the screen. If it just can't fit that way, structure it vertically.
  3. In writing a Wikipedia article, the base assumption you have to start with is that your potential reader knows nothing about the topic. Your audience is not a person who already knows enough about Yukon politics that you don't need to explain anything for them -- your audience is a person who doesn't have a freaking clue in HELL what a "Fentie" and a "Duncan" and an "Edzerza" are, or what the difference is between blue and orange, or why the black box isn't lined up with the rest of them. In other words, you have to either wikilink the names so they can find out, or just leave the whole thing inside a longer article in the first place so they actually have some context for it.

</end-rant> and merge all. Bearcat 04:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why these articles have thier own seperate pages is because we, or least I wished to keep the size of each article down. Certainly Bearcat must see that putting the entire seating plan of the House of Commons or the Ontario legislature on the same article as thier appropriate legislature page would increase the size of the article by way too much. We could replace these with images, however this leads to much difficulty in having to replace each time the legislature chamges. The other legislatures follow the same format, which I think is important. There is no telling how large the size of the legislatures will be so why not leave this page where it is. To one point the previous user made about Yukon Politics. This page only links to the Yukon Legislature page. The only way to come across this page, other than a search, is to go through the legislature page. This page contains a full list of every MLA. It shows the party leaders, Speaker, and cabinet ministers. Where is the diffuculty in finding out who Fentie is?

Moving on to the House of Commons. There is nothing wrong with having the page shift to the right or the left. This is something that shouldn't be a problem. The seating plan, I believe, would be more difficult to read in an up or down format. Such a thing would be more difficult to format and will be much longer as well. If it ain broke, don't fix it. 

MS123
  • I disagree with you, MS: each page should have enough context that if someone comes across it by clicking on "random article" from the navigatio menu to your left, there is enough context and at least one link to another page that they can start to figure out what it's about. I think that is a Wikipedia standard. So if it is going to stay as a separate page, it must have some context, like that which I recently added to Yukon Legislative Assembly. As far as where it belongs, that depends on the size of the article. I don't think that the YLA page is too big yet to require a fork, so we might as well put everything on one page. The House of Commons and Ont. leg. are big enough to warrant forking. By the way, I do like these charts, and thank you for taking the time to make them. Keep up the good work. Ground Zero | t 20:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to GOD, the whole world is against me! Bink! There have a gander, take a peek, now what? 

MS123
  • There's everything wrong with having the page scroll to the right, actually. It's always considered bad form on the web; it's never acceptable web page formatting anywhere. And similarly, "you can only get here from there anyway" is never a valid argument against providing the necessary context; every article has to be formatted and structured as if it were a standalone entity. You can never just assume that your reader either (a) knows what you're talking about, or (b) knows how to find out what you're talking about. It's not just an arbitrary Wikipedia rule; it's a basic requirement of any legitimate article in any reference work of any kind. Bearcat 23:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Bearcat, STFU! Just because other pages use this type of format, it doesn't mean that these FEW pages do too! Most of the internet is laced with spyware and advertising, yet I see no argument for that nor would I expect to. Wikipedia is unique. It is an encyclopedia not a webpage. I used to argue that the look of a page or format of a page was more important than the information provided. Now I see that the information provided is more important. Can the seating of the HofC stand alone? I think so. There is a table that shows the colour of each party, so we know what the colours mean. I have added a link to a list of MP's. The title does say Seating Plan. I would not go to this page and look for information about pickles. But finally this page is not supposed to stand alone. It is a fork or offshoot of the House of Commons page. It is done this way to conserve space. MS123

  • Don't you tell me to STFU. That's completely inappropriate and unacceptable. And yes, information is the defining criterion of an encyclopedia; that information still has to be presented in a usable way. Scrolling off the right side of the screen is not acceptable; providing no context within the article itself is not acceptable. It's not just an arbitrary Wikipedia rule; it's a basic requirement of any reference work of any kind. Bearcat 19:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say STFU if I feel like it. We are talking about a seating plan of the legislature in the yukon. Put your opinions on this on you user page, otherwise, who asked you? A BASIC REQUIREMENT? According to you! It is no big deal to scroll to the right on a page. Having to do so doesn't make it unusable. Have you read the page? Why is there no context? What more do you need? There is a link to the Gov't plan, and place in the title Canadian House of Commons. I say again, I would go there to look for pickles. The plan is explained. What is your problem, are you just too lasy to click on the scroll bar, is that it? Never have I, or anyone else I know come across such a site and said "oh, I can't use this" I say that certain sites that shift to the right is unappropriate. But this is different. You don't read it like a book. It is not a continuous sentence that is unreadable. It is for reference. 

MS123
  • This is a discussion page. I have every right to express my opinion on an open and active discussion in that discussion, and you can take your "STFU and whine about it on your user page" and mail it to someone who cares. This is not about what I say; it's a basic rule of creating a reference work: pages that scroll off to the right HAVE NO PLACE IN A REFERENCE WORK. PERIOD. Oh, and by the way, swearing at a site administrator isn't really the best way to earn yourself a whole lot of respect around here. Bearcat 20:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well maybe I could suck up to you. Maybe then I could earn some. Like I really care if a couple of faceless names respect me or not. I am hear to provide some work and knowledge to an encyclopedia. PERIOD. It is true, you do have the right to express these opinions. But not here. This is about the Yukon Legislature Seating Plan, not about the Canadian House of Commons. YOU brought that up. You tell me to send my opinion to send it to someone who cares. You are the only person to complain about this shift to the right. So you go tell someone who cares. Perhaps an Administrator shouldn't talk about wikipedia's "arbitrary" rules. If you have a problem with them, you and the other administrators can go work that out. Have a Ball! I point out that the plan is more of an image than anything else. Not a piece of literary work. Images shift to the right. And I point out that again that "pages that scroll off to the right HAVE NO PLACE IN A REFERENCE WORK" is still what you say. It is not a policy of wikipedia. If you wish to talk about website formats outside of wikipedia, make an article about it. (STFU, It's just fun to type isn't it. Eh, Bearcat?) MS123

You're the one who first brought the House of Commons article into the debate as a comparison. Not me. You. And for the last time, "pages that scroll off to the right HAVE NO PLACE IN A REFERENCE WORK" is not just "what I say"; it's a fact. It doesn't need to be spelled out in Wikipedia policy; it's simple common sense. Perhaps nobody else has said it's a problem, but nobody besides you has said it isn't a problem, either. The point remains that it's not up to you to decide what I'm allowed to say or where. Bearcat 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did bring the House of Commons as a comparison, but what you are talking about is unrelated. The Yukon Legislator Seating Plan does not shift to the right. Listen 2+2=4 is a fact. What you are talking about is opinion, I don't care what you say. Look I'm not going to keep arguing with you. Let's deal with the current issue, and if others raise issues about the HofC later, we can talk about it then. Nice talking to you. MS123


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zipera[edit]

Little context is provided. No accomplishments are listed in the article. Redirect to polish hip hop, WWO, or ZIP Skład? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.212.247 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete unless evidence is provided that they meet WP:MUSIC. No allmusic.com entry, and if the article's author can't be bothered to write more, then I can't be bothered to research more for him. —Cryptic (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the author is Polish and has trouble writing in English. Kappa 10:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. According to this article [23], they had a new record appearing in shops in Poland as at Febrary 2004. This implies that they have made at least two albums as per WP:music and they have played at festivals in Eastern Europe. Capitalistroadster 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic. They may have 2 albums, but I can't verify they are on a major or important indie label.--Isotope23 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is notable stuff not sold in US. Vivian Darkbloom 18:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikify to a Polish-language wiki, where more information may be available, else Delete. Jesse 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. Kappa 22:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zvault[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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_11&oldid=1081093321"