Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 12

< October 11	October 13 >

Purge server cache

October 12[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wikiacc (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. European Television[edit]

Appears to be a failed project: a tv station that never started broadcasting; web site of the project is down (and has been for some time); the scheduled date for starting operations has passed by several months.
Delete: not notable; delete according to WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we need less links to dead web sites, not more. chowells 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Masterhatch 10:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed tv stations with down websites are non-notable. Cool3 03:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TV Station will Never Exist in my opinion, so not notable. - Bwfc 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2110 bolton wanderers[edit]

Delete - I think this page has nothing to do with Bolton Wanderers F.C. or anything else for that matter. - Bwfc 15:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (I've rewritten my vote to be more clear).[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, context-only article. The one google hit doesn't especially convince me to expand it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a short article containing only nonsense it should be speedied. Qwghlm 12:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I agree with the above...this is patent nonsense and probably falls under CSD:G1. PacknCanes 17:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under either CSD A1 or CSD G1. Denni ☯ 04:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is articles like this that there shouldn't even be a vote. Isn't that what "speedy deletion" if for?Masterhatch 10:40, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2L 2005[edit]

Another page about a school class-- JoanneB 12:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will not affect anyone out there. I Personally believe that consent has been sought from each individual on his identity-post here. It is a way for these young men and women to remember the classes by. Will not be any trouble to the wikipedia community. These children would have a good memory when they revisit this page. - Will Smith
Will not affect the internet community in any adverse way, we should just leave it and make people happy as it seems that the class is an interesting and vibrant one - Zhi 1 8:12, 12 October 2005 (RI)
Delete, nn vanity nonsense -- Ferkelparade π 12:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Near Speedy as attack. The one with the horny desire and more recently, tong tong flong or titty flick! Dlyons493 Talk 13:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is irrelevant and indiscriminate use of profane language-- Zph 21:10, 12 October 2005 (RI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.68.45 (talk • contribs)
~~Wow, we should keep this. The boys would have this as a memory to their good times together as a class. Please do not delete this!~~ -Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.59 (talk • contribs)
- Ok I changed my mind. We can have this on our own homepages. Delete. -202.156.6.59 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT... whatever that is. Memorial? Vanity? Although high school classes may achieve automatic WP notability soon, thankfully they haven't yet. --Last Malthusian 13:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, restored votes deleted by 202.156.6.59 (talk • contribs) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Attack page, and no notability either. I'd speedy it as an attack, but I'm not sure whether the CSD requires a single subject, as this article attacks several people. Excerpts: "Has an inclination to being horny." and "Everyone avoids him. Cos we all hate class fund.". Parts of it are near nonsense too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about privacy of the students included? And the teachers? Not necessary as school does not have a database for classes to showcase their students each year (logically.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.115 (talk • contribs)
Hi. I am a member of the class who did this. This is a way to remember our class, and it is widdely held that our class is the most interesting one in Raffles Insitution. We wrote the comments about ourselves, so there is no attack. We sincerely hope that this will not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.61 (talk • contribs)
- I changed my mind. (please see above) - 202.156.6.59 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is basically a bunch of inside jokes which are only meaningful to the classmates involved and people who know them personally. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the humor page of a high school yearbook. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic vanity nonsense. If the class wants "a way to remember" themselves, they should get a free website on Yahoo or some such service. - DocSigma 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the same as 4.16 Enoch (AfD discussion). The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources to back up anything at all in the article, even the very existence of its subject. This article is unverifiable. Presuming that such a class actually exists nonetheless, Wikipedia requires that knowledge about it (such as a breakdown of its membership like the one given here) be published elsewhere, other than Wikipedia, first, and be subject to peer review and acceptance by others. The place for this article is the school's own web site or the author's own web site. I think that Last Malthusian is looking for Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor is it a free wiki host. Delete. Uncle G 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I wonder why a particular class ought to be included in Wikipedia. The content is nonsense and vanity. *drew 10:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense, although not patently so. — Phil Welch 00:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I hate to vote against Will Smith but this does not belong on wikipedia, which is not a school reunion website. I would also draw attention to a related page sidn which was apparently created to promote the slang used by the class 2L of the Raffles institution. it is also up for deletion.Bwithh 04:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Masterhatch 10:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, not NPOV, and not notable in any way. bjelleklang 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Cool3 20:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The members of the class themselves seem to be requesting deletion. However, the article still has to go through the normal AfD process. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Bwfc 15:36, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4 color rebellion[edit]

vote for deletion of 4 color rebellion

Delete: Personal web page, unworthy of a wiki entry -- Ritchy 4 October 2005
Delete - non-notable. Rob Church ^Talk 16:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 134,582, no evidence of national media attention presented, 276-member forum. —Cryptic (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Masterhatch 10:48, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

500 greatest country songs[edit]

Delete 100% PURE GRADE A POV Dudtz 10/4/05 3:03 PM EST

This survey probably does exist somewhere - a Google search bashes us to a Russian website, here, but on account of its non-encyclopedism, and its horrible inaccuracy, it should be deleted. That said, I have made an edit to this article myself, merely for cleanliness. Bobo192 06:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bobo192. Kamezuki 07:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. Maybe if it had a source and was uncopyrighted. tregoweth 04:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete per Tregoweth. —Cryptic (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a credible source is provided ie Country Music Association or a country music magazine. Capitalistroadster 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice list, but not encyclopedic. -- Mrmooky 15:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a source is found. TomStike 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definately POVMasterhatch 10:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencylopedic pov. Cool3 20:08, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaarkediou[edit]

nonsense, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gymeria

Delete -- As per nomination Ben D. 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might as well take this one out too! --MacRusgail 16:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. No Google hits. KeithD (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pyrzqxglly - only one Google hit, and that's to Pages for deletion. I'm worried what'll happen if I manage to pronounce it correctly. Bobo192 06:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete hoax/attempt at fanfic/whatever. —Cryptic (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Cool3 20:25, 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 MOOT. The article was speedy-deleted.

Accidental sex[edit]

Very silly dictdef of a neologism not actually in use. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, delete. Harvestdancer 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Denelson 83 07:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Brazilian[edit]

Was a redirect to Afro-Latin American and should remain so. Not notable concept, no evidence that people in Brazil refer to themselves and/or blacks with this term SqueakBox 14:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very valid wikipedia entry. "Afro-Brazilian" appears to be widely accepted and significant cultural concept for Brazil, especially in politics, music, dance, religion. "Afro-Brazilian" brings up over 315,000 hits on google and over 400 hits on Amazon.com. Many of these hits are non-trivial. Examples: there has been an Afro-Brazilian art exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum - see this link [1]; there are academic works using the term such as one on the role of Afro-Brazilians in Brazilian political history - link: [2]; there are workshops on Afro-Brazilian dance such as this one at Stanford University link: [3]; there are serious discussions and news reports on Afro-Brazilian religion: links:[4] [5] Bwithh 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: disputes about page content, such as whether an article should be a redirect, do not belong on AFD. Speedy keep as wrong-forum nomination and move discussion to article's talk page. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether you can quote policy to back up your claim that this is not a valid Vfd, though I doubt it, but I am sure that there is no such thing as speedy keep, SqueakBox 16:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep is in fact a legitimate term (it generally indicates an invalid AFD that should be prematurely ended). However, issues of redirects frequently end up here, so let's settle it rather than moving the debate elsewhere. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the afro brazilian people are so great in number of citzens and have a culture that difer from the spanish speaking countries of latin america. I think afro brazilians should have they own article and not make just a part of the afro latin america article. Of course the african brazilians make part of afro latin americans, and should make part of that article, but just a stub , and let a more complex text on his own article. I dont think is a good idea to delete the african brazlian article. and i think the article will be very improved and expanded. user:mateuszica 12 October 2005
Keep. Nearly 300,000 hits for Afro-Brazilian including references to religion Condomble, literature and culture see [6]. Our article claims that there are up to 60 million people in Brazil who fall into this category. While this could do with a little cleanup and the provision of references, this article is in reasonable shape and in my view has Featured Article potential. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, not even the nominator wanted it deleted. btw, I don't think that it it should be redirected. --Apyule 06:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep not red. I learned about this term when Olga de Alaketu died, and it seems widespread in Brazil. Xoloz 14:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, afro-brasileiro (Afro-Brazilian) is a common word used by blacks in Brazil when they don't want to be called negros. PMLF 00:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now satisfied that this article should be kept. As I am not an admin I don't want to close it, but can an admin please do so, SqueakBox 16:54, 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 No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Bryant Jr[edit]

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion, other than to note that most of the article is a verbatim copy-paste of http://www.knox.army.mil/dcg.stm, though that's likely PD. —Cryptic (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Brigadier General and probable vanity. Non-notable because in looking at the other Brigadier Generals that have wiki articles, they all have a major accomplishment or scandal tied to them. Albert Bryant Jr's involvment with the 4th ID (of which one unit actually captured Saddam Hussein) is probably the most notable thing in this article, but he was not personally involved in the capture. The rest of the article details some great accomplishments, but nothing that really stands out from the accomplishments of other military top brass... which brings me to my second point: vanity. I don't know what relation User25be is to the Bryant's but the level of biographical detail in all these articles, the pictures, and the trail of edits User25be has made (all are about Bryants or auxillary articles about awards they've acheived, etc.) lead me to believe that this is something of a vanity project for this user. User25be has a real flair for writing wiki articles; technically these articles are near perfect... my only beef is that there is too much information in some articles (for example Renee Bryant's awards listed in articles other then her own). I hope that regardless of the outcome of these AfD's User25be continues to contribute because he or she has a real knack for writing.
Strong Keep for a couple of reasons. Let's dispense with the less weighty one first: I came across this article while following links from other articles being considered for deletion and I found myself actually interested. This family is obviously accomplished and by the time I got to this bio, I felt like I had learned something. That kind of gut reaction, genuine interest in the subject generated by the entry, means something. With the extended bandwith Wikipedia has to offer, as I mentioned in another post, there is room for the "B-listers" who are notable, if not as notable as those who can be included in more restricted informational resources. The second is that I legitimately feel this person is notable, but notable in sum, if not for one reason only. The accomplishments are legitimate and the career is clearly noted. The link to Saddam Hussein's capture is legitimate as he was the Assistant Division Commander of the unit. It would be different if he were a fellow soldier, but he was the second in command at the time and that is significant. Also, his wife has won the third and fourth highest awards the Secretary of the Army can award to civilians, and his son is a decorated veteran as well (this is bolstered when you look at some of the other Bryant entries...this is clearly a military "dynasty" of sorts, with EVERY SINGLE eligible member--subject, subject's father, subject's father-in-law--making it to the General Officer level, and son and wife receiving military decorations, as well as the other son working on the highest-profile Coast Guard project undertaken. I am from a military family myself and thus know that these are not things easily achieved and I have great respect for the people who have done so (my father and grandfather never got past MAJ and LTC in 20 and 25 years respectively, and they were not chopped liver.)
- Though I do wish user25be had offered more than a cut-and-paste of BG Bryant's official bio. If he/she is as close to the subjects as he/she appears to be (which in of itself should NOT be a disqualifying factor) I think a fleshed out entry would give us a better idea of whether or not this person is as notable as he appears to be (or not to be). If he/she reads this before the 5-day period closes, I invite user25be to elaborate (and justify, to an extent) his/her inclusion of these entries. I have noted that I believe some of his/her entries are strong keeps, while others are weak keeps. I would appreciate his/her reasoning. el_amante 20:12, 12 October 2005
Strong keep. Deputy Commander of Fort Knox qualifies as notable -- Mrmooky 15:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite. Being in charge of the unit that captured Saddam Hussein makes him notable. But, calling him "BG Bryant" before he's actually promoted to Brigadier General is misleading, and the overall tone, to me, sounds a bit un-NPOV. Otherwise, there's a lot of useful information, especially to someone writing a report on Fort Knox or the capture of Saddam Hussein. -Oddtoddnm 18:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Josh Parris # 00:08, 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.

As mentioned on the Talk page...

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Denelson 83 19:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alkerism[edit]

Is Alkerism a "real" thing? I refer you to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought Mrdini 22:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. All Google hits are to Wikipedia mirrors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denni (talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 October 2005
Delete as above. --Apyule 06:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amit K. Saiya[edit]

del vanity. mikka (t) 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as vanity. Peruvianllama 06:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Apyule 08:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least not notable now. --Bhadani 12:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC) boldfaced vote for clarity -- PacknCanes 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up 3 hits, one of which is User:Hall Monitor's talk page. PacknCanes 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to keep it unanimous. This qualifies as vanity. Though Mr. Siaya seems to have great potential, he does not appear to have accomplished anything of true note at this time. I'd recommend he come back in a few years! el_amante 21:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity of no particular note. My humble apologies to BD2412 for not catching this earlier on my talk page (just saw it now). Hall Monitor 22:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please see Harmonie Research Foundation as well, as this article was also created by 59.92.x.x and also appears to be non-verifiable. Hall Monitor 22:55, 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 article was subsequently reposted as Amit K Saiya and Amit Saiya. -- RHaworth 09:32, 9 June 2006 (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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Airport[edit]

This could be a mildly interesting article if only there were more details. Where, in Heathrow, is the 'Animal Reception Centre'? What does it do? Who works there? Sadly, these details don't appear in any websearches either so Delete. Eddie.willers 03:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. After exhaustive websearching, all I can turn up about this show is that a total of eight, 24-minute episodes were made in 1999 by World Television for the British Channel 5. It has been repeated since on satllite & cable channels but not on by the terrestrial broadcasters. I would hesitate, therefore, to say that it is 'notable'. There do not appear to be listings of its content or production staff on the web although it is in current distribution for broadcast. Eddie.willers 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TV programs are generally notable, and being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see verification that this is a real TV show. If it's shown it's real and it's broadcast nationally, I'll probably vote to keep. --rob 06:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Providing its real. Ban e s 08:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real TV show. Kappa 09:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source that confirms this? If so, please include it in the article, and I will happily reconsider my vote. --rob 10:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK Animal Airport is simply a compilation of animal related parts of the BBC TV documentary series "Airport". The "Airport" series is notable, "Animal Airport" isn't a show in its own right. If there's a page for the BBC "Airport" series, redirect Animal Airport there and add comment?
- Are you sure? This link http://tinyurl.com/ahp82 credits it to Channel 5, which would be a strange place for a BBC documentary to end up. In either case, Keep(waynemarkstubbs) 14:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re-direct to Airport (television show) per above. Nothing to merge, since a) no verified info exists, and b) the target already mentions the "the animal reception centre" in it. --rob 14:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google search for "animal airport" turns up a variety of hits for this show, see [7] for example, but not all that much information. So it's verifiable but not clearly notable. --Metropolitan90 14:26, 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 16:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arnold Hunter[edit]

Editor and wife of founder at Loft Press. Author of one pamphlet. Willmcw 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet my interpretation of WP:BIO's criteria for inclusion. Hall Monitor 21:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated before in my votes for the AfD's of the articles for the company and her husband. -- ��Captain Disdain 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being married to someone only marginally notable certainly does not confer notability. Denni ☯ 05:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in because this woman has edited one heck of a lot of professional material and even if willmcw has an anti-female bias the facts of accomplishment still stand. I suspect Ms. Hunter's books have sold more copies than those of all the three commenters above. Flaming does not belong on Wikipedia--Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.61.14 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 October 2005
- So have I. I've written a bunch, too -- but I don't pretend the world cares so much that they want to look me up in an encyclopedia. Accusations of misogyny are rather unwelcome -- it's not our fault that this woman, despite having edited one heck of a lot of professional material, is not something encyclopedias are made of. That's not a slight on her, it's just the way it is. -- Captain Disdain 04:49, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aorta metalcore[edit]

Band vanity. DS 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A band with no albums. Delete. --Ashenai 17:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bandcruft. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, flunks WP:MUSIC. They don't even have a demo! —Cryptic (talk) 10:39, 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, because neither a merge nor a redirect appear to be appropriate. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apel[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Retodon8's comment when tagging the page was "1 lone enemy has a page, whereas the specific game doesn't even have a page of its own? Please delete." While the specific game now redirects to Commander Keen, this won't work well in there, and if I remember correctly, there isn't really much more that can be written about this enemy. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not need an article on every single creature in a computer game.--Exir Kamalabadi ^Esperanza 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere (List of creature in Commander Keen games maybe) or keep. Kappa 20:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Commander Keen. If it won't fit in there, just redirect it. --Apyule 06:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of the least notable creatures in the Commander Keen games, the name "Apel" isn't even mentioned in the game. Teklund 15:16, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archigenesis[edit]

del. nonnotable neologism. mikka (t) 06:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, neologistical and vague to boot. Anville 09:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable in this context. --Apyule 06:00, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aschinger[edit]

Delete This seems to be nothing more than a brief advert for a small cafe in Austria Staffelde 23:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chick Bowen 19:36, 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 keep, merge and redirect. Wikiacc (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AWA Superstars of Wrestling[edit]

This very short bite of information could perhaps be merged with AWA--194.32.41.11 08:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect to American Wrestling Association; the content's already there, nearly verbatim. Merge the roster article in, too. (If this somehow survives as an independent article, merge the roster here.) —Cryptic (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Cryptic Youngamerican 16:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. This is barely notable, even as part of a parent article. Xoloz 14:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. McPhail 23:20, 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 No consensus. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkwa[edit]

del foreign dicdef. mikka (t) 07:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Singaporean snack. Kappa 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles about significant dishes are always encyclopaedic. Weasel
- The article says that the name of this not so "significant dish" is "dried meat". Shall we have articles with titles "dried meat" in all local languages? mikka (t) 23:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jkelly 16:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Needs to be expanded, but border line relevant.Rhetoricalwater 18:11, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Mile[edit]

I'm as much a fan of beer as the next guy (perhaps moreso, considering the 20 or so different brands I sampled this past weekend) but puerile college antics such as this don't strike me as encyclopedic, nor of wide interest. Al 21:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition, the article seems to exist solely as an adjunct to the external URL listed on the page.Extreme Unction 22:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because its no different from the pages for Sink the Titanic, Edward Forty-Hands, or FizzBuzz and add a link from Drinking games --CastAStone 23:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much as I hate it, and add link from Drinking games per CastAStone - and add a Cleanup tag, the darn thing does look like an advert for one website, but check out Inaugural Encinitas Beer Mile Rife With Rules Infractions as well as the barmeister rules and there are entries from daily.Stanford.edu and andrew.cmu.edu/ as well as others on a google search. Its a real college phenomenon. KillerChihuahua 00:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, I was about to vote delete but the Chihuahua has found some evidence for third-party coverage. Kappa 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's keepable now, with third-party coverage. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository for drinking games. The only reasons I can think of to include a drinking game are if numerous people have died doing it or it is mentioned frequently in the media and/or TV/movies. Those links only show that it exists, not that it's notable. -- Kjkolb 15:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The beer mile is the toughest and most competitive sport in the world of digestive athletics. -- Ardeshna

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 (deleted by Moriori). Greg Asche (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin bechtolsheim[edit]

I believe this page to be a vanity article. The sole contributor to this article is a non-registered user - User:67.176.246.3, whose contributions, bar one, are all to this artice. I have googled "Benjamin bechtolsheim", and have only found a few online newsletters relating to a Jewish community in Chicago, America. Saberwyn 02:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Saberwyn 02:12, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borachowski[edit]

Delete Poland is a Roman Catholic country with a minimal number of muslim and is not a particular ferticle place for a jihad organization. No google hits on Borachovsky+Jihad abakharev 13:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. mikka (t) 23:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Shanes 02:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and, I somehow suspect, a personal attack. MCB 06:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Also note that the page has been vandalised a couple of times today. -- Francs 2000 23:37, 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 16:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bucket and spade[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Kind of funny though, so I put it on BJAODN. Graham/pianoman87 talk 03:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, definitely BJAODN. Walter Siegmund 05:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 05:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reserve. It's not encyclopedic at the moment, but the topic has some potential. I'll think about it. --Apyule 08:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~racist insult~~ nonsense. — JIP | Talk 10:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sand art and play. Uppland 13:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If we do that, then delete and redirect: The article as it stands is not worth keeping at all, even in the history. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite completely. The current content is unencyclopedic and should be removed, but the topic is interesting. The bucket and spade is the canonical example of a traditional beach toy. --David Edgar 15:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leave a redirect as per Graham. Proto t c 11:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rib tickling BJAODN. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:06, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

C. C. Rousseau[edit]

del nonnotable math prof. mikka (t) 04:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the guy does have an Erdos number of 1, which might make him quite notable. (I'm only half-kidding here.) MCB 05:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC) After further discussion, count my vote as keep and expand. MCB 02:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I know quite a few cases where a contrib from Erdos was a just brilliant idea tossed in. mikka (t) 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep He is a significant mathematician and educator and coauthor of Winning Solutions (Problem Books in Mathematics), 1996 that is listed on Amazon. Walter Siegmund 05:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I get the sense from Google searches, that he has co-authored a sufficient amount of stuff, that seems to be followed by others. He seems to of co-authored multiple things with Erdős, who seems to be really important. I think it would be quite interesting if somebody can expand this. --rob 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please expand this. Does he have a theorem named after him? Did he suggest a new theory of vanishing semisporadic pseudonumerals? What's special about him? Thre are millions of professors in the world. mikka (t) 22:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~, however, if he and Erdos did something very significant together, I would change my vote. We aren't told anything about their collaboration. The book appears to be math problems with some explanatory text. Half the professors at my school have written their own books, some of them textbooks, but I wouldn't consider them notable enough for an encyclopedia entry because there are so many people who have done the same thing. -- Kjkolb 07:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looking at Dlyons493's comments, it appears he is famous for more than being a professor and author of a math problem book. It would be nice to have his accomplishments in the article, as it currently describes his profession and that he worked with someone famous. Make sure it's in a form that regular people can understand, though. -- Kjkolb 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion, but his Erdős number is an infinitesimal fraction of mine. Anville 09:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Lots published in Erdos's areas of Ramsey theory, graph theory see [8]. Dlyons493. attributed vote -- Kjkolb 12:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Erdos is famous, Russo is not: sitting in the sun makes you hot, but not so hot. mikka (t) 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. 23skidoo 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this figure appears to be significantly notable within his field of study. Hall Monitor 21:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- references of notability, please. list of publications i a no-go: I have a longer one. mikka (t) 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not establish notability beyond that of an average professor. Gamaliel 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This entry would clearly be a keep with a solid rewrite. I do not think that C.C. Rousseau can be dismissed as an average professor. In evaluating several entries, I note that Wikipedia is a perfect place for "B-List" notables (AS LONG AS THEY ARE, INDEED, NOTABLE) because it is not as constrained as traditional, limited, informational resources. Mr. Rousseau appears to be notable within his field and that would qualify him for inclusion, in my opinion. However, a rewrite, clarifying his achievements, would be needed for me to vote "keep" or "strong keep." el_amante 20:32, 12 October 2005
- I don't necessarily know it is appropriate to compare Mr. Rousseau's lists of credits or publications to one's own in support of a "delete" vote. I don't know much about academia, but I do know that depending upon the field, the number of years in academia, etc. the number of such metrics can vary. Simply because someone does not appear to be as accomplished as you are is not support, in my opinion, for their deletion. el_amante 20:32, 12 October 2005
Keep notable enough. Xoloz 14:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote for the moment. I can't establish his importance, but he does seem more notable than the average maths professor. Rousseau has not just an Erdős number of 1, but he has authored 34 articles with Erdős, and about a hundred alltogether (according to MathSciNet), with many appearing in good journals: Journal of Graph Theory, Discrete Mathematics, Transactions of the AMS, Ars Combinatorica. He is also mentioned in book (graph theory). On the other hand, our article C. C. Rousseau does not give much information, so we might need an expert in Ramsey theory to decide in the end. Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, upon further expansion change vote to keep. Klonimus 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keek. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 03:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Plenty notable author. It'd be good to have some bio, tho' Robinh 07:11, 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 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Computer Network[edit]

Please note that a related page Cambridge College Networks is also being considered for deletion

Delete This page was created with content removed from the main Cambridge University wiki page. I created the page and linked it from the main Cambridge University page at the request of the author (User "A5") of this section which I removed. I still do not think it is appropriate for Wikipedia.

This content belongs on a computer lab bulletin board or website, not an encyclopedia.

Delete, too specific. Pilatus 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Specific computer networks are not encyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I think specific computer networks could be encyclopedic, but it would have to be for reasons other than they just exist and have a somewhat typical configuration. I.e. unique and interesting topology; notable history; important security incidents or implementations, &c. — RJH 14:51, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capsules in H3knix[edit]

The distribution system for a small linux distribution. Reads more like a howto than an encyclopedia article. Delete, or, if wikibooks *really* wants it, transwiki. Graham/pianoman87 talk 02:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest a merge to H3knix, but that seems not to exist, so delete it has to be. —Phil | Talk 09:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
del. It is a user manual, not an encyclopedic article. mikka (t) 22:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT. Proto t c 11:53, 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 delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cassiopean[edit]

Delete per nomination. This is a pure vanity page written by someone who appears to be a self-published author. It contains the author's own points of view, in the same sense that one would expect to see on a personal webpage. It does not belong on Wikipedia, IMO. - Sensor 02:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this might be a valid subject and not simply vanity, if the article was edited down to remove the lengthy POV rambling, and stuck strictly to objective description of the movement AND if this esoteric movement or cult or countercultural group and the history it claims on the website can be proved to actually exist, AND if it can be shown that this group or this set of beliefs have some cultural status. Otherwise, delete. Bwithh 04:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. Sources are not convincing. Walter Siegmund 05:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. This does not appear to be an account of parapsychological research or ufology, but simply the author's own research or opinion. MCB 05:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR personal ramblings. the wub "?!" 19:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even think the information in this article is acurate. I also agree with all the above. Tobyk777 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a mess, but more importantly, while the term has some usage in the mythological lore of of Ufology, it doesn't have as wide of a dispersal in that community as concepts like Reticulan, Lyrian, Reptoid, and Andromedans. Some of those terms are fairly common among alien race "true believers" and Cassiopean appears to fall below the notability threshhold of those terms.--Isotope23 13:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity and unverified. *drew 06:44, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese take-out boxes[edit]

Trivia. Chinese take-out article. RoySmith 18:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is the embodiment of OR. - ulayiti (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not turned into a real article by the time listing expires. If improved into a real article, then keep. --Ji ang 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My reason is that the article has been requested in Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts, I was abstaining until I found out that. --Vsion 21:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gulp. Just because somebody requested it doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. What if I requested Elbonian toenail clippings and somebody wrote an article about that? --RoySmith 22:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Elbonian toenail clippings have anything to do with Culture and fine arts? -- Vsion 22:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some pretty strange things that were called art :-) --RoySmith 00:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article may be requested, but I'd be willing to bet that the person requesting the article was hoping for a much better article than this one. Crypticfirefly 06:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ouch. Pilatus 22:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While an article on takeout boxes might have merit, this article, as written, is useless. - Sensor 00:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It doesn't even mention those clever fold-up waxed cardboard boxes with the wire handles which in my mind are the canonical Chinese take-out containers. What is interesting is that the title of the article refers to "take-out" which is American usage, but the body of the article says "take-away", which is how the Brits would say it. --RoySmith 00:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why would anyone request an article on Chinese take-out boxes? It kindof boggles the mind. KillerChihuahua 00:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone obviously ran out of imagination and competence to improve any of the 3/4 million articles we have to offer. I mean, who the hell cares about sewing anyway? / Peter ^Isotalo 01:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not going be a "real article" without violating a truckload of policies. Articles on take-out boxes belong in blogs or anecdotal websites, not in Wikipedia. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unencyclopedic, unsalvageable, trivial OR (and the author did not even get it right, as RoySmith observes). MCB 06:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unbelievably trivial, 1st person blurb. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to Requested Articles. -Sean Curtin 06:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure this goes back on the list of Requested Articles. I firmly believe that a proper encyclopedic article could be written about Chinese take-out boxes, but this isn't it. Crypticfirefly 06:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- A further comment: five minutes of research has taught me that cartons that RoySmith mentioned were originally intended for holding shucked oysters and were adopted by Chinese restaurants in the 1940's. A common name for them in the packaging industry is "Chinese pail." A good article on this topic would mention these facts. Crypticfirefly 06:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this page cracks me up --Ewok Slayer 02:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 as performed by User:Gamaliel. Hall Monitor 22:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mandemaker[edit]

I dont think this is notable --Hiall:) 20:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Vanity & bad Batman rap. Blame it on the Joker. JJay 20:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 21:24, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christians in the Arabian/Persian Gulf[edit]

Sorry, but the lemma is plain silly. And I don't thing renaming would do, as we already have Assyrian Church of the East. --Pjacobi 18:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, is your problem with the Lemma? How else would you suggst we deal with a problematic geographical name? Insofar as I am in the process of writing the article, I assure you the scholarship behind it is solid. --RLMullen

I started to look because of the lemma. And I consider the "in the [..] gulf" inapprobiate. But the question of the lemma is tertiary.

Perhaps we can shortcut the process, if you just explain, why this shouldn't go into Assyrian Church of the East?

Pjacobi 19:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Assyrian Orthodox Church is a denomination. Pilatus 20:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article in question is about its early history, Armenian Apostolic Church

The article is about Christianity in a region, so I'd prefer not to bury it under "Assyrian Church of the East", which, as Pilatus says, is a denomination. Maybe rename it "Christianity in the Arabian/Persian Gulf Region" or "Christianity around the Arabian/Persian Gulf" RLMullen

Keep, this information might be buried somewhere in Assyrian Church of the East but someone looking for it should be able to go straight to this page. Possibly rename to Christians in the Gulf region and we will guess which gulf. Kappa 20:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We also already have Christians in Iran (and, but a miserable stub only, Early Christianity) --Pjacobi 21:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Burying this information into Assyrian Church of the East is absurd for a number of reasons. The Assyrian Church of the East is not the only jursidiction in the Arabian/Persian Gulf as previous indicated. Secondly, there are other non-traditional Christian groups (mostly Protestants) in some areas of the Persian Gulf which should eventually find their way into the article.--Nicodemus75 23:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nicodemus75 KillerChihuahua 00:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Gareth Hughes 02:17, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clorofolk[edit]

Imaginary music genre, no bands cited, few distinct Google results —Wahoofive (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete. My Italian isn't good but it seems to be a genre of Italian folk music with modern tweaks. Trouble is, www.google.it only has inconclusive links too that all appear to say the same thing. Really, this article says nothing. If left alone, how long will it stay on the clean up list before someone makes a meaningful addition? Eddie.willers 01:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per Eddie.willers. --Apyule 07:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can cite a reference in notable music media.--Isotope23 13:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone verifies and actually adds some content. the wub "?!" 19:47, 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 userfy. work in progress. mikka (t) 00:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Christianity/new[edit]

Merge and delete -- This article has been created in response to the pov/npov conflict at Criticisms of Christianity. The original article should follow the example of Criticism of Islam and Anti-Judaism on how to deal with edit conflicts instead of creating a NEW page for the same article! -- Svest 19:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

I started the "new" article as a sandbox-style "work in progress" to (eventually) replace the POV monstrosity that is the "main" page, or at least to merge with it or provide a model as to how it should properly look. The creation of the "new" article may well be less than ideal; if I have violated a policy that I didn't know about, I am sorry. The "new" page is not meant to be permanent or last any longer than possible. KHM03 19:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy userfy to User:KHM03/Criticisms of Christianity for work-in-progress purposes. Let's assume good faith and close this out fast. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:39, 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, but in retrospect, nobody would have noticed if it was speedied.... --Phroziac^(talk) 18:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Ramadanovic[edit]

Local notoriety he may have but that hardly makes him a notable figure for an encylopaedia. Delete Eddie.willers 03:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bwithh 04:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiable with a few regional news stories, and an AP story, but not notable. Walter Siegmund 05:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Human interest story. Good for newspaper/bad for encyclopedia. Qaz ^(talk) 05:43, 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. Physchim62 14:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Departments of Senegal[edit]

Article is vague and has no context on the subject. Solarusdude 18:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ This might well be a proper article, or a proper section of Senegal. But the present sub-stub has no content at all. If significant verifiable content were added i would rethink my view. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like Counties of the United States. Kappa 19:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is actually empty. The names of the departements (sic!) ought to go into Regions of Senegal. Pilatus 20:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So no-one needs to know how many departments Senegal has? Kappa 20:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added content from elsewhere in Wikipedia. It should, of course, be expanded. Punkmorten 21:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Check out Geohive. Punkmorten 21:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished the expansion. All we need now is a prettier table. Punkmorten 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is now some content, but not really enough for a good article, adn i don't see lots of prospect of further expansion. Merge into Regions of Senegal, or perhaps better merge this page and that one into Senegal. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In my eyes, a merge to Regions of Senegal would be misleading as the subjects in question are not regions, they are in fact departments and should be treated as such. The stated references supply material for further expansion. Punkmorten 21:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regions is both a general adn a technical term -- it is certianly relevant to the list of regions (which is all that is in Regions of Senegal at present) what departmetns each region contains. But why not merge both Departments of Senegal and Regions of Senegal into Senegal? Do you realy expect so much additional content that separate pages are needed? Leave redirects in case people search on these terms. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We need to be able to link to departments of Senegal every time we say X is a department of Senegal. Kappa 22:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Redirects are cheap. Now Regions of Senegal has the nicer map and Departments of Senegal the nicer table. One of them ought to be redirected to the other. There is no need to split the information atom. Pilatus 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it'll take time but should grow. Dlyons493 Talk 21:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Regions of Senegal. Pilatus 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list. Regions are divided into departments and departments in turn are divided into arondissements see [9]. Furthermore, Matam formerly a department of the Saint-Louis became a region in its own right with departments of its own so Departments are notable in their own right and a separate list of them is worthwhile. These are similar to counties in the US or local government in Australia. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Regions of Senegal. I was the one who AFD'ed the article, but now that there's a lot more information in there (and in tabular form too), I'm happy with either keeping it or merging it. Solarusdude 00:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new updated useful list.--Kewp (t) 14:01, 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 16:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digital losers[edit]

Delete Agreed, please delete - this was a mistake done by a rogue member and I was not aware of it. Again, I apologize on behalf of the website team - Zer0render, Talk 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. non-notable web forum. 7 google hits on the URL, including wikipedia; Alexa says no data; site itself says it is in "beta". Delete. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^RC1, maybe these should be speedies. feydey 22:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete naturally. --Fsdfs 07:11, 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, merge and redirect. Wikiacc (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dilutant[edit]

Nothing links here and this page is not in any category. Tedernst 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Tedernst 17:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That nothing links to an article is not a reason to delete it. Neither is the fact that an article is not in any categories. Uncle G 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe my reason is wrong. It's a dictionary entry that nothing else links to. Why does it belong in Wikipedia? Help me with the reason? Tedernst 18:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's factual, verifiable, a legitimate term, and goes beyond a typical dictionary definition. Keep. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination states no applicable reason for deletion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than a dictionary definition. Kappa 20:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Diluent and Redirect. The two words are equivalent and Diluent is more common--Vsion 22:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Identical synonym of diluent. ~~Have any of you voting to keep actually read either of the articles or are you just reflex-voting a la Kappa?~~ / Peter ^Isotalo 01:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you just voted to keep, are you referring to yourself? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never agreed with the rigidly binary interpretation of AfDs because it's in obvious conflict with the idea of Wikipedia not being a rule of law. People constantly refer to AfDs to build consensus in issues regarding article moves and mergers. As long as people do this, I'm going to vote for the option I actually want rather than voting to delete. But if any admin closing this vote interprets my vote as anything other than literally merge and redirect, then my vote defaults to delete. / Peter ^Isotalo 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm with you on this one. I believe there are three discreet and separate options: keep, delete, and merge (or transwiki). None of these ought to be considered a vote for the other, and at count time, none of the votes for one ought to be merged with the votes for another. And Hipocrite is not entirely correct. Not all closing admins count "merge" as "keep". Denni ☯ 05:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Also a motion to calm the hell down and quit it with the personal attacks, folks. Geez. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to diluent. Denni ☯ 05:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Diluent. Either article is a stub as it stands, but I would merge Dilutant into Diluent because Diluent gets significantly more Google hits... --Daedalus-Prime 23:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It is more descriptive and better written than Diluent but both need not exist.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Feel Like We Do[edit]

It's a famous song but there's no content other than "this is a song by Peter Frampton" and nothing links here. We don't as a general rule create stubs for songs. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Excellent work by Capitalistroadster. Comment, however: if I'd put a {{cleanup}} or {{expand}} tag on this, this probably wouldn't have happened. How can we stop AFD from being the most effective cleanup process? That's one reason AFD is so crowded.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a famous song or redirect to Frampton Comes Alive! until someone wants to expand it. If anyone expands it now, my vote is just keep. Kappa 00:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Keep, great work as always from the Roadster. Kappa 11:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. US top 10 single from a US top 10 album see [10]. It lasted more than 14 minutes [11] on the album and I doubt that there have been many live 14 minute songs featuring a talkbox solo to make the top 10. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Rogerd 01:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above, but perhaps the redirect option? Ban e s 08:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have expanded the album and added categories. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 10:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another nice catch Cap. Alf ^melmac 12:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — fairly notable song for its time period. — RJH 17:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep now, great work Capitalistroadster! the wub "?!" 19:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable, I wish Wahoofive would stop nominating articles for deletion when they are obviously not in the criteria. — Wackymacs 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Graduated from high school in 1973 and it was definitely the memorable song from that year!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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} 05:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic virtue[edit]

Meaningless cant that has no context, source or justifiable premise. Delete. Eddie.willers 20:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism that has been tagged for cleanup the last 6 months with no action.--Isotope23 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google shows it to have a fair amount of currency among academicians, and it is a term I've heard before. While the article needs expansion, it is comprehensible. And since when does any article have to satisfy "justifiable premise" (and what the heck is that anyway?) Denni☯ 05:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if it was cleaned up and sourced, but it's been on cleanup for too long to be given the benefit of the doubt. "AfD is not cleanup" works both ways. --Last Malthusian 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and "first seen around the time of the American Revolution"? I don't think so. "Ug go hunt, woman stay in cave and clean loincloth" is as old as man, surely. --Last Malthusian 08:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- N.B. I'm not basing my vote on the fact that I disagree with the article; perhaps the author meant that the American revolution was the first time that for a woman to stay at home was seen as a virtue and not just a role assigned to them by nature (though I disagree with that as much as my first reading). But it appears to be Americentrism, which is one of many possible symptoms of POV posts masquerading as encyclopaedia articles, as here. --Last Malthusian 15:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been significantly expanded. Please take a look at it. Denni☯ 05:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the effort, it's certainly a significant improvement, but I'm afraid I'm still unconvinced as to the article's worth. There may be sources now, but it still looks like original research in the form of an essay - a sequence of quotes with alternating viewpoints. My vote stands, though I'll be watching for further improvements with interest. --Last Malthusian 08:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what else you expect. It's not original research, as I'm not proposing anything myself. It is all taken from credible sources, and demonstrates that the term is not a neologism (original concern). Denni☯ 08:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I don't believe that your quotes do any such thing. Only two of them use the term 'domestic virtue' in the quote itself, and neither of them use it in the sense defined in the first paragraph. They appear to mean "a family's virtue", rather than anything specifically to do with the virtue of women staying at home. And even if they did use the article's meaning, evidence that one or two people used the term doesn't really lift the word above neologism status: we regularly delete neologisms used by one or two blog authors. I don't believe the fact that the sources are old makes the term any more noteworthy. --Last Malthusian 12:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with Last Malthusian... the usage isn't really clear from these examples; it appears the authors are using the term to mean different things.--Isotope23 13:25, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drew McKissick[edit]

Was listed for speedy as a nn-bio, but it does just barely assert notability, so I'm bringing it here. Even though I refrained from speedying it, I vote delete because I'm still not convinced he's notable enough. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree not notable. Only thing that is close to notability is being a delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and that's not notable enough. And everyone has a blog nowadays, promo. feydey 22:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while I continue to caution against a bias against blogs and bloggers, I agree that this is not a blog of note. While Mr. McKissick may be notable, more information is needed (if the author reads this before the 5-day period is over, consider a rewrite with any information you feel may better support the notability of this subject). This feels too much like promotion for the blog. While I do consider a delegate to a national party convention significant, I can't justify it as notable enough as there are simply so many delegates and they are often chosen for patronage reasons, not substantive ones, so that such a selection automatically conveys notability. el_amante 21:00, 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 and merge. Wikiacc (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical potential of the reaction[edit]

merge into Galvanic cell that already has a large section on the topic and delete: hardly anyone will search this title. I apologize before the contributor for discarding his work, but one must really read while writing. Wikipedia has lots of stuff already. mikka (t) 02:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge somewhere - Galvanic cell, Electrochemical cell, Electrochemical potential, Electrode potential, Table of standard electrode potentials, or ... Lots of merging needed. Don't need this obscure title. Vsmith 03:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (about title) i didnt make the title, another author had linked his aricle to this title, and i decided to fill in the blank, about the sources, u can take it fromany chem book if uve ever seen one. To me it seems pretty obvious.

I may not believe this, but plenty of use have never seen a chem book. I am sorry that some of your first contributions were not so successful; probably because wikipedia is still a big mess, i.e., poorly systematized in many places. I hope this will not discourage you from future contributions. mikka (t) 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the heading because it was messing up the Table of Contents. -x42bn6 Talk 03:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge per mikkalai but make a redirect instead of deleting. --Apyule 07:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Vsmith. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. the wub "?!" 19:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the sense of a redirect? Did you read the title carefully? "Electrical potential of the reaction". I would understand the title "Electrical potential of a chemical reaction", but this one is just a phrase, as the author explains, red-linked in some article. We cannot have redirects from all possible phrases (unlike common misspellings). A proper syntax to do a link from a phrase, if you want a smooth text, would be this: [[Galvanic cell#Electric potential of a Galvanic cell | electrical potential of the reaction]]. mikka (t) 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not too keen on having a redirect either, but I think policy dictates one is needed to comply with the GFDL. I have to admit I never fully understood that argument though, but it does seem to come up fairly often. the wub "?!" 20:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the author merges his text into the main article themselves, there will be no GFDL problem. mikka (t) 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read the title carefully, and I still think that a redirect would be a good solution. I know that we can't redirect all possible phrases, but I don't see why we can't do this one. --Apyule 02:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ZlatkoMinev 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC) From the author, since im new to wiki, and i have no idead what you are talking about --All i wanted to do is contribute-- i dont see why u cant move it, or redirect it, or if u wish merge it. Well i guess?[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. — JIP | Talk 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Music Systems[edit]

Mis-named article - moved to Electronic Music Studios (London) Ltd ajn (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. I've altered the two entries which used to link to this (the company's usually known as EMS, which is probably where the confusion arose). -- ajn (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep as a disambig I made, which points out at a possible confusion. mikka (t) 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep from me now, too. -- ajn (talk) 05:37, 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 merge with List of Internet slang. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epeen[edit]

Nothing links to this page.

Delete per nomination. Merge with List of internet slang per Kappa (talk · contribs) upon further review Tedernst 22:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That nothing links to an article is not a reason to delete it. Uncle G 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe my reason is wrong. It's a dictionary entry that nothing else links to. Why does it belong in Wikipedia? Help me with the reason? Tedernst 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Punkmorten 17:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PunkmortenMerge per Kappa, good call. As per Uncle G, the original rationale is incorrect. Isn't the deletion policy linked from all the AFD pages? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A neologism to be sure, but it's gaining some widespread traction, especially on gaming forums. (Heck, if I've encountered it it must be pretty popular.) Still, it is little more than a definition of a slang term and not likely to be much else. ~~Put me down as a weak transwiki to Wiktionary~~. Al 18:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an option in this case. Please choose another course of action. Uncle G 19:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well. Merge with List of internet slang per Kappa (talk · contribs). Al 21:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason given in nomination. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother to examine reasons in other votes? Blanketing a particular vote in AfD because the nom is just learning the ropes seems to skirt close to WP:POINT — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of internet slang. Kappa 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Kappa. Sliggy 23:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kappa. (I can understand your frustration, though, Hipocrite.) --Jacquelyn Marie 04:03, 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 Speedied. android 79 03:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate De Debonaire[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, bandcruft, crystal ball. Badly written too. RoySmith 01:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to AfD this and had an edit conflict with RoySmith. Based on Google I'm not convinced there is such a person (no hits for either real name or stage name given), and if there were he wouldn't meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Chick Bowen 01:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:music. Apparent hopeful with album being released in 2006. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Rogerd 01:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Actually it's worse than band vanity. It seems to be about just one person, and makes no claim of notability. It just talks of a future 2006 release. The article heaps praise on him, but doesn't even claim he had success. A article talking of a nice professor who hadn't published yet, would be speedied, so should this. --rob 03:07, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fall_of_Rome:_Total_War[edit]

Non-notable article on third-party modification for the Rome: Total War computer game. One of many such "mods" that is under development by a small group. Has not been released. Qualifies as a vanity article at least until it has been released and acquired a substantial following. Of all mods for the game, only Rome Total Realism, by far the most popular and one of the oldest, has an article of its own. Others are consigned to mentions within the main article on the game, where this mod is also listed. Text of article is essentially marketing copy. Craigkbryant 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Craigkbryant 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreleased mods are almost never notable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:45, 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 16:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Family Tree Registry[edit]

Not very blatant website promtion, but alexa rank: No Data [12]. Not notable page. feydey 23:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. -- Captain Disdain 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I posted this, but I understand the desire to only include highly-ranked sites. Since the site has just opened, I will repost when/if it becomes more popular (which I expect it will, because I believe it to be a useful new tool for genealogists). Unsigned comment by User:68.50.47.207 (who is indeed the author of the article as claimed). — CB
Delete per nom and author. Chick Bowen 19:50, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Yankees Player: A Mickey Mantle Story[edit]

This page is a hoax by User:24.46.170.164 (contributions), who has a history of creating such articles -- see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew (TV Series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Branigan: Boy Genius. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as hoax. A biopic about Mickey Mantle featuring George W. Bush and Bush Sr.? Come on. Perhaps it's time to find out why this guy keeps creating obvious hoax articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PacknCanes 17:22, 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, therefore keep. Wikiacc (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farley Daniels[edit]

~~Vanity and/or band cruft. Google search for "Farley Daniels" mahones got zero hits.~~ RoySmith 17:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad. I was too quick with this one -- further research shows The Mahones are real, have several published albums, etc. I'd like to withdraw this nomination, but I'm not sure what the right process to do that is. --RoySmith 17:49, 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 SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 16:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firewall-1/VPN-1[edit]

Sounds like pure advertising blather to me. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a cut & paste from [13]. Possible copyvio. --Big_Iron 21:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, and I've tagged it as a speedy per CSD A8. PacknCanes 03:56, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

footballwristbands.co.uk[edit]

Advertising. Delete. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an informative entry, not advertising.

Advertising none-too-cleverly disguised as an 'informative entry'. Delete. Eddie.willers 14:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepIt does not seem like patent advert. to me, but I will not exactly be heartbroken if it is deleted as an advert. Youngamerican 16:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. feydey 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and per nom chowells 10:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant advertising. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete adveritising, no media coverage. Chick Bowen 19:30, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foriegn investors moving into the CAFTA region[edit]

Cannot be put in CSD. This is not encyclopedic, no wikilinks in etc. feydey 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic and unsalvageable, and sadly, nearly incomprehensible. Anything of importance here is, or could be, in the CAFTA article. MCB 07:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary. Dr Gangrene 13:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary. --Woohookitty 10:18, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin L. Frank[edit]

DeleteHoax. No such person found in Google search of 'Franklin L. Frank' + 'Long Island', other than in Wiki mirror sites. Forbes Top 400 Richest Americans does not mention him either. Delete. Eddie.willers 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this is clearly a hoax. If this person was a billionaire as the (very short) article claims, there would be several places where he could be referenced on the web. This person may *wish* he was a billionaire, or might not even exist at all, but I'm not even sure if he would still be notable for that fact or the sparse group of others cited, alone. el_amante 20:47, 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 18:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future_Infinity[edit]

This article appears to be a thinly disguised commercial press release. The attached discussion page was packed with thousands of identical links (to raise page rank?). The game itself according to its web page is in beta testing and late for release. No redeeming historical interest or precedent setting prototyping that I detected. 70.110.37.3 19:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased game in beta. If this were something where there was solid evidence of a waiting fanbase (like Final Fantasy XII) I'd vote to keep, but there is no evidence this game is in any way significant.--Isotope23 20:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. PacknCanes 03:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete commercial article for an unreleased game

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Future Infinity[edit]

Very small potatoes online role-playing game, Alexa rank for futureinfinity.com: 4,111,370 --Ruby 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Infinity[edit]

Very small potatoes online role-playing game, Alexa rank for futureinfinity.com: 4,111,370 --Ruby 04:25, 21 February 2006 (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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General Florentius[edit]

Hoax. The short version: he lacks an entry in the Prosopography Of The Later Roman Empire (PLRE), which proves almost conclusively that he does not exist. And this saying about Flavius Aetius & Emperor Valentinian III the article attributes to him is more likely the utterance of Sidonius Apollinaris.

The long version: the PLRE is an exhaustive list of every individual who is recorded as living in the Roman world during AD 260 - 641. There are 7 men named Florentius in this book, none of whom fits the profile in this article: they lived at the wrong time, are not known to have lost of an arm or leg, or lacked a military career. While admittedly there are omissions in this list (an obvious example would be anyone mentioned only in inscriptions found & published after the completion of this work), the fact that that the author of such a "famous" saying would be overlooked is odd enough to merit a mention, an explanation for this oversight, & a reference to the primary source to prove his existence; the original author did not provide any of these. As I noted on the Talk page, I have traced the quotation attributed to this general at least as far back as Edward Gibbon, who claims he found it in the writings of Sidonius Apollinaris.

With this extensive argument I may be breaking a butterfly on a wheel, but I wanted there to be no doubt about this issue: General Florentius only existed in some anonymous contributor's imagination. -- llywrch 23:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Llywrch's convincing argument against the credibility of this article. -- Captain Disdain 00:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm convinced. But please, start an article on the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, as it sounds like an eminently notable text! BD2412 ^talk 05:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- ...couldn't resist - started one myself (but it surely needs work!) BD2412 ^talk 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: what does "breaking a butterfly on a wheel" mean? I searched for it, but could find a definition. I'm just curious. -- Kjkolb 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Guessing it's something like using a hammer to kill a fly. BD2412 ^talk 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- I took the phrase "breaking a butterfly on a wheel" (it was the first that came to mind) from a observation H.L. Mencken made of a critical essay two of his proteges, James Stevens and H. L. Davis. BD2412 defined it quite nicely (although I've heard "sledgehammer" used instead of simple "hammer"). -- llywrch 18:32, 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 no consensus. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germanía[edit]

Unverifible, dictionary definition that belongs more suited for the Wiktionary maybe. Prior nomination was no consensus, see: Talk:Germanía. Hardly anyone touches the article either. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Maybe if there were some examples of Germaniac words it would be encyclopaedic, but all I see is a definition and etymology: hence, dicdef. Anyone care to translate the second reference given? Germanía --Last Malthusian 22:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this far from being a dicdef, as it includes history of the argot's usage. It needs expanding and maybe a bit of cleaning up, but it's an encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable criminal argot. Kappa 23:46, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosthead[edit]

Page consists of nothing more than a single line of text and a bunch of external links. Only two pages link here, and one is just a redirect from Ghostheads. - DocSigma 15:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - DocSigma 15:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe this could be added to the article about Ghostbusters. Unsigned comment by User:Rcnj — CB.
Delete. no evidence that this is a significant term. I can imagine someone under 8 enjoying that movie, but who would identify as fan of it? Chick Bowen 19:41, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsea[edit]

Alexa 60 something k so this is a small scale site. Written as an advertisement. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 18:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. rank notwithstanding it is a quite elaborate site, definitely not a college dorm operation. mikka (t) 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion of the quality of the site is your own POV, mikka. It has nothing to do with inclusion criteria. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable website. / Peter ^Isotalo 01:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable wrt wiki standards. Eddie.willers 02:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:07, 18 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonie Research foundation[edit]

del vanity. mikka (t) 06:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, also as vanity. Peruvianllama 06:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 10:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. --Bhadani 12:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 del: An attemt to communicate. Translation: hello Hasan bey. My name is Nima. I am from Iran. We knwo that you are a freemason... etc." mikka (t) 21:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Ali Yucel[edit]

not in english, so I can't be 100% sure, but it looks to be either a vanity page or some kind of attack page... Definitely doesn't look to be encyclopedic, either way. Windsagio 16:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as an attempt to communicate (Starts Hello Hasan and ends with an email). Dlyons493 Talk 18:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this article appears to be poorly organized and insufficiently well written in any language. The fact that it is in a foreign language, obviously, disqualifies it as well. el_amante 20:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Everything about this says "attempt to communicate". I don't see any need to wait two weeks to learn it's not an article on nuclear fusion that we've somehow missed. Denni ☯ 04:59, 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 delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellogoodbye[edit]

I don't believe this quite meets WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN. KillerChihuahua 00:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They have been on major media so they stay :)-allen
- Unsubstantiated comment by anonymous user. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:03, 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 Speedy Delete. --Doc (?) 08:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herrera_Tower[edit]

Delete unauthorized posting of information --unsigned comment by User:203.167.82.165
Delete no content --unsigned comment by User:203.167.82.165
Why owuld you create an entry and then nominate it for AFD? Speedy delete -- (drini's page|☎) 06:07, 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 Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History Of Project Rockstar[edit]

Project Rockstar itself is certainly notable enough, but its history... I don't think so. Perhaps some of this stuff can be merged into the PR article, but if so, major rewriting is required, as the article is written in a thoroughly unencyclopedic style. -- Captain Disdain 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. If someone really wanted to they could try and capture the main points in a timeline and merge it into the main Project Rockstar article...--Isotope23 18:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Project Rockstar] and redirect --SPUI (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Isotope23. Rd232 22:47, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holmesdale Online[edit]

Delete - vanity Greg321 23:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa rank over 150,000 [14]. Parts of the article seem to be stolen from [15]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete - (give it the red card). --bodnotbod 05:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it. It's complete vanity publishing.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 blatant copyvio. DS 13:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does xp works[edit]

This is a howto, and not a good one. Pilatus 09:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. — JIP | Talk 10:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyvio from howstuffworks.com; closing up early. DS 13:08, 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 Speedied Wikibofh 14:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Wilen[edit]

nn vanity RoySmith 02:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers, especially ones this young, are generally not notable. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable educator - doesn't even have his doctorate yet. Delete. Eddie.willers 03:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a biography about a real person that does not assert notability. --rob 03:16, 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, also delete the image. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Nordstrom[edit]

del vanity. mikka (t) 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, and the picture too. Harvestdancer 23:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn/vanity. Borderline speedy, I don't really consider "administrator of Imths.com" an assertion of notability. MCB 07:08, 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 keep. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immanentize the eschaton[edit]

Unsourced:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Immanentize+the+eschaton%22++site%3Avatican.org ) => nothing found
http://www.google.com/search?q=eschaton+site%newadvent.org&btnG=Search (Catholic Encyclopaedia) => nothing found

Pjacobi 14:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the phrase is mentioned on Eric Voegelin as well as several web sites chowells 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that would be an alleged third meaning. I'm mostly targetting the alleged first meaning, as I've found no sources for a connection to Roman Catholicism. Anyway, if the result will be keep, I'll take your comment as volunteering for cleanup. --Pjacobi 19:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand. You might want to make your reasons for nominating it clear in the AfD in the first place. I will certainly not be cleaning up the article if its kept. chowells 19:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per category sorting and intro sentence, the article states that it is a concept in Roman Catholicism. My attempts to verify this failed (see above). The article further states, it is a concept in conservative propaganda. I doubt this, but I can't judge it, as this is a very broad topic. Anyway, if that would be the only meaning, the article is grossly inadequate. Now you additional state, it is a concept in Voegelin's gnosticism. Uuhh. But that certainly isn't in the article and therefore wouldn't be a reason to keep. --Pjacobi 20:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My impression was that you were suggesting that the entire phrase was a hoax or a neologism. My vote remains the same however. chowells 20:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a number of external links to the article, please consult them. They document Conservative use, evangelical Christian use, Discordian use, and Chaoist use. They also describe the phrase peing popularized in the 1950s by William F. Buckley after its use by Voegelin, and in that conncetion discuss (rtaher vaguely) a Catholic use. They also document its use in describing Gnostic views, but apparently only by non-Gnostics. This may derive from the Roman Catholic use. The use in formal Catholic theology is the only one not well documentd from these links. DES ^(talk) 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article may need to be re-categorized, re-stubbed, and/or cleaned up, but none of those is a good reason to delete. DES ^(talk) 20:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are now longer than the article. the wub "?!" 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree on removing the connection to Roman Catholicism, I'd agree to speedily keep. In the long list of sources giben now, only some ".'.Frater Equilibrist.'." http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/ite.html claims the connection to catholicism. Now looking through the sources, it's seems to be mostly a Robert Anton Wilson concept. --Pjacobi 20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable concept in US conservative politics. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy Keep for the connection to The Illuminatus! Trilogy alone, but obviously is a notable term beyond that book. 23skidoo 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but where is the illuminatus link? SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Note: I started the article, so I'm biased. It is a lot better now than it was though!) --Carl 01:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with much improvement needed. glocks out 23:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imths.com[edit]

Non-notable site, single link-to from google. Vanity. CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable site. The site creator, Ian Nordstrom, created by User:MrNordstrom, could probably be speedied as vanity if consensus is that his site isn't notable. / Alarm 20:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was jsut a test anyways, feel free to delete it if you'd like.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 consenseus. – Rich Farmbrough 20:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Malone[edit]

Potential vanity. Notability questionable. How many comedians are on the Canadian Comedy Circuit? Granted, the guy just won some Homegrown Comic Award. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 03:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. What commercials has this comedian appeared in? If additional authoritative sources can be provided for this figure beyond the local comedy festival, I may be inclined to keep this. Hall Monitor 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find much on the internet about him, except for the fact that he won an award. My opinion isn't any stronger than weak delete. I was also unsure if this was a copyvio, since its copied direct from another website w/o a copyright notice. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 09:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Relisting - inconclusive --Doc (?) 23:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was on CTV's Comedy Now in September, and had the unusual distinction of having a whole hour to perform (it's usually a half-hour series) because it was the show's 100^th episode. So...I'm going to clean this up and vote keep. Bearcat 06:22, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeela[edit]

It's difficult to say exactly what it is, but it sure isn't an encyclopedia article RoySmith 00:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Dlyons493 Talk 01:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Rogerd 01:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...didn't they used to call this 'sex appeal'? Delete as per nomination.Eddie.willers 03:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. -Walter Siegmund 04:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slang. Ban e s 08:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably redundant, since there seems to be total concensus, but I couldn't resist: jeela could be defined as an adjective foe the word delete, but such a definition does not exist. KillerChihuahua 15:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. the wub "?!" 19:53, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JHOVE[edit]

nothing links here Tedernst 18:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - Tedernst 18:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nothing links here is not a criterion for deletion. It is, however, very stubby. JHOVE Harvard draws 136 unique Google hits[16]. I think it's borderline on low hits => software vanity vs many hits being academic papers. No vote. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason in nomination. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm learning the policy here. Sorry for taking time following the policy that might've been better spent by me learning the policy. It seems to be vanity and unimportant. Can a reason for deletion be changed? Is there a reason to keep an article just because the reason in the afd is wrong? Thanks for helping me learn. Tedernst 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, collaboration between JSTOR and Harvard University Library. The google hits on Lomn's link are good quality. Kappa 20:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pronounce Jove - I spent days on this and related stuff over the Summer. (On second thoughts, if I voted delete would it all just go away?) Dlyons493 Talk 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This helps me get through college. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Denni ☯ 05:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, substub. --fvw * 01:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the stub a little. -- DS1953 03:56, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JTorae[edit]

Bandcruft. Linkspam too. RoySmith 02:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic/bandity/advertisement/spam. — brighterorange (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a cut-and-paste job from the band's PR website... --Yggdrasil 04:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Walter Siegmund 04:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very unencyclopedic --Blue520 11:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nuke it. --PhilipO 19:51, 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 delete. Wikiacc (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KABOOM[edit]

Pointless intialism. Dlyons493 Talk 17:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Timbatron 18:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete moviecruft —Wahoofive (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial moviecruft. MCB 06:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons. bondegezou

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Erik Wadin Wesslén[edit]

Non-notable vanity article. The claims to notability seem to be that he has a blog and has written a book. Looking at the blog, only one user comment has ever been left (and this was deleted by the blog owner) which suggests that this is not a particularly notable blog. In terms of the book, "Historien om NRA" garners two hits on Google, neither of which actualy mention Wesslén's name. Delete CLW 20:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blogger. At least he didn't try to create a separate entry for his blog.--Isotope23 20:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // Fred-Chess 22:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this appears to be primarily a promotion of the blog and likely qualifies as a vanity article. THIS IS NOT TO SAY that blogs and bloggers are necessarily not notable and I think we should be careful not to instinctively react to blog-related entries. As blogs and blogging grow, there will probably emerge a growing number of bloggers of genunie notability--the authors of the Daily Kos, Wonkette, etc. come to mind. I think that the issue has to do with how well-read the blog is, how independently notable the blogger is, and whether or not the blog is cited widely by other blogs or traditional media. I do not know if Wikipedia has a blog policy, but I will be sure to check right after this. el_amante 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points. FYI: Some of your questions are answered here: WP:WWIN and Wikipedia:Google test. // Fred-Chess 14:23, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Academic Challenger as nonsense. Graham/pianoman87 talk 03:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kerin[edit]

Completing nomination for user:71.28.243.246. Body only contains following text "Kevin Kerin OWNZ". Looks like vanity. Delete Nomination completed by Graham/pianoman87 talk 03:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to KISW-FM. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KISW Duck 1977-1980[edit]

del nonnotable. Verifiable? A whole zero google hits for "KISW dick" today (while wikipedia mirrors didn't pick it up). mikka (t) 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC) mikka (t) 06:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, if verifiable. Kappa 09:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "if". I failed to find a confirmation. mikka (t) 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the radio station has no article, otherwise merge and redirect. A mascot doesn't need a separate article. -- Kjkolb 14:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suggect rename to KISW and make it a seed for the radio station article. KISW is the heavy metal rock station in Seattle, and has some degree of notability. — RJH 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. At some point someone will write a KISW-FM article, and this belongs in it. Lean towards keep so that the text can be incorporated into that article when it's written. (If doing so is against a policy that I missed somewhere, let me know and I'll change my vote.) PacknCanes 17:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- the policy is wikipedia:verifiability. It looks extremely suspicious to me that this duck is the most prominent member of KISW while leaving absolutely no traces on the 'net, including their own website, http://www.kisw.com/ . mikka (t) 17:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stations don't put anything about their history on their website more often than not; see WKNR-AM for a station that does nothing to honor its (significant) history on its website. And if we're in the business of rejecting all AfDs for radio stations simply because they're radio stations, then eventually this station will get an article. Barring a complete hoax (which this, admittedly, could be), I just hate to lose this writeup because it really could go into an article that hasn't been written yet. Still abstaining; I won't be upset if it's deleted, but I don't think it should be necessarily. PacknCanes 19:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are not listening: wikipedia:verifiability is the major benchmark here. The anon author came and go. Why would we care about the fate of this opus of untraceable source more than s/he? mikka (t) 23:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable. I'll change to a keep if someone manages to verify it. --Apyule 05:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no original research (and if it can't be verified, that's exactly what it is). Proto t c 11:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Daniel O'Brien I protrayed the KISW Duck from 1977-80 and contributed this article. I am willing to verify any of the claims made in the article if necessary. My user name is artistdogboy --artistdogboy 21:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)````[reply]
With all due respect, Sir, I would very much love to have your story here. Unfortunately there is a policy wikipedia:No original research, exsisting for serious reasons. Please provide sources of independent verification of the events you are describing. A good idea could be to ask the KISW webmaster to post your blog story at their site. I think my colleagues agree that this would count for an independent verification. Also, if you could contribute to KISW (KISW-FM) article, your tale would have a much better standing. Thank you, mikka (t) 21:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Mikka, someone who was the duck would be a primary source, a fine source for material. Doing their own writing would need vanity checks but isn't original research. The article "makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims". The intent of WP:NOR is to remove Wikipedia from publishing crank physics theories and not to dissuade people from writing about personal experience.
Merge and redirect to KISW, even if it is the only content on KISW. Putting it in the Category:Seattle will get some attention quickly. SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- and done, wow would that have been difficult for any of the previous commenters here? SchmuckyTheCat 23:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh we can merge things while they are on AFD now, I hadn't realized that. BTW Schmucky if you merge things, you are supposed to mention the article they came from in the summary. Kappa 23:30, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Becker[edit]

nn, bio page Kertrats | Talk 14:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep, 40.000+ google hits, several books published,...
Keep, the article says "The Wire singled out Monoton’s record "Monotonprodukt07" among the 100 most important records of the 20th century" Kappa 20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this figure is perfectly notable. Hall Monitor 21:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I do think the neutrality issue should be addressed. el_amante 20:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article establishes importance, though it does need some work. Denni ☯ 04:49, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Famous Nairs[edit]

Lot of unverified entries , Promotes casteism. (nominated by 59.93.35.216)

Can the nominator please sign the nomination and explain the problem a bit more ? Would you also suggest deleting entries like List of famous Jews, or are you only against caste ? Tintin 11:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tintin. Please be more specific. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: weren't castes abolished? If so, the list shouldn't the list only have historical names? -- Kjkolb 14:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are not abolished. They are very much around. Even the government provides reservation of jobs and seats in educational institutions for some castes, in a way similar to the affirmative action in USA. Tintin

Comment: When the Constitution of India was adopted on January 26, 1950, it abolished the caste system and guaranteed equality to all citizens." So, I guess they are giving the jobs to those who would have been in the lower castes. Since castes are outlawed, only tradition is keeping it intact. Wikipedia should not help in its preservation. Only historical names should be added, if it isn't deleted altogether. It's not the same as different ethnicities because ethnicities are not defined in terms of superiority, like castes are. It's having a list of people who are considered better/more clean than these other people. -- Kjkolb 09:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This leads me to ask a question, please excuse my ignorance. If castes are outlawed, how do we know what castes these folks "would have been in"? I'm worried that this list, although notable, might be unverifiable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my reply at the end. Tintin 17:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of famous people from this caste. The problem of unverified entries can be solved by verifying or removing them. Does list of African Americans promote racism? Kappa 15:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to List of Nairs, according to the custom here. mikka (t) 23:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per mikka. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa Denni ☯ 04:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll try to address the comments of kjkolb and Kzollman here :

To kjkolb : I doubt about the validity of your statement about the Indian constitution (Nichalp should be able to confirm it one way or the other). What the constitution says will make little difference in what people do in this aspect anyway. It is also nonsensical to outlaw caste and then allow reservation on its basis. What the constitution has outlawed is probably only discrimination based on caste.

As wikipedia editors, we should be bothered only about recording things as they stand. It is not for us either to pass judgement, or do anything either to preserve or eradicate it.

Castes are a fact, whether we like it or not. In my personal experience, its influence has increased considerably in the last 15 years or so, when compared to the time when I was a schoolboy. Every political party tries to appease certain castes and draws heavily on caste based votes. A significant percentage of the parties are formed on the basis of caste alone.

To Kzollman : Nairs use some distinct surnames like Nair (obviously), Menon, Pillai, Panicker etc. So if someone or any of his relatives has that surname, it can be considered a valid entry. Some of the doubtful entries were discussed in the talk page; there are 10-20 entries which I am still not sure about. The list also contains too many unimportant people who need to be removed.

PS : I am not a Nair, btw ;-) Tintin 17:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin, thank you. My concerns are aleviated, and I'll leave my keep vote above. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree somewhat. I know that Wikipedia isn't for changing society, but I'm concerned that by continuing to recognize castes as valid, it is not being neutral, either. In its very small way, it is helping to perpetuate castes. I think the article describing the Indian caste system is sufficient and neutral. It could say that it is being followed increasingly in recent years, but a list of people in a caste seems like celebrating and taking pride in it. It would be totally different if this had to do with ethnicity, but castes make value judgments on the people within them, some of them very bad, some good, but all undeserved. I'm sure there are a few who take pride in being called an "untouchable", but most people probably don't want to be known for it. It is something to be ashamed of and according to the Dalit article, some of them hide their caste/non-caste. It's about as attractive as being on a list of "mud people", a term some use to describe non-whites. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll resist the temptation to give my personal views on the subject and just say that I generally agree with you, but consider this as just a list of trivia. I wouldn't take my time start one of this kind but now that it is here I have no problem with it staying on. It is not interesting, but hopefully someone will find it useful. Tintin 14:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will Prakash Karat tolerate him being listed in this casteist page ? Many people cannot tolerate their names being identified with caste? My name is in this list and I don't like it. Please take permission of the concerned persons before adding to this list

If your name is really on the list, the first thing I have to say is that we are very glad to have you with us !

I disagree with your comments that the editors should not add things that the subject of the article may not agree with. If the subject is notable and the facts are verifiable it belongs here. Karat is certainly famous. It can be verified that his parents are Nairs. Whether he likes it or not, he is/was a Nair and is atleast a 'former Nair'.

What certainly can be done to make it accurate is to add a comment about this 'former' aspect in the description, or move Karat and such others to a seperate section with an appropriate title. I'll add a comment about this in the talk page of the article for the regular editors [17].

If you think this page should be deleted, you are welcome to vote.

While we are it, if you are a regular wiki reader, I wonder whether you would like to contribute to the Kerala sections. There are hardly any articles that come up to scratch and we are way behind Tamil in terms of the quality of the articles. Tintin 15:05, 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. --18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

List of famous rivals[edit]

Irredeemably POV and unmaintainable. DS 13:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't know about POV, but certainly virtually infinite. --Last Malthusian 13:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No POV problem, but pointless and unmanageable. Logophile 14:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Logophile. Tintin 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, trivial. Xoloz 14:36, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loft Press[edit]

Minor publishing firm. No particular notability. Essentially an advertisement. Willmcw 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all publishing firms, even somewhat established ones, are notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. -- ��Captain Disdain 01:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leave in because you can see articles on Barnes and Noble among others. Not an ad, in my opinion. Provides information of use to the reader.--Author
- I don't see the articles you are referring to. Are you connected to the Loft Press? If so, can you tell us what its most notable book is? That might help. -Willmcw 22:58, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Love live life[edit]

neologism, dicdef at most NeilN 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google test turns up some hits [18], but many of them look accidental. Either way, I don't this can grow beyond a dictionary definition. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. Chick Bowen 19:45, 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 Pearl Harbor. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Field[edit]

Not notable building even if its naval and in Pearl Harbor.

Merge into somewhere where this will be more useful - like the main Pearl Harbor article. It deserves to be kept somewhere, but it's a little bit too nn for an article of its own. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Grutness. It is too small to keep on its own when it can be placed elsewhere. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:12, 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 delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Freeze[edit]

No assection of notablily or even what it is, whould have been a A7 but its not a person. Looks like some organization that is still nn Delete --JAranda | yeah 19:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apparently this is a women's football team in Portland Maine, see link. Given this is sad excuse for an article right now, but I don't know if the team and/or league itself is notable just yet. So I'll hold off on voting for now, just thought I'd let you know what I think this is. -- Malo 20:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no context, and very nn. If someone can provide context, let them restart the article. PacknCanes 03:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, this could be a speedy delete under WP:CSD A1, as a short article with little or no context. (An article about a sports team that doesn't provide enough information to determine what sport they play is a perfect example of no context.) But thanks to Malo, we know that this is a women's football team. They play in the National Women's Football Association, some of whose teams have Wikipedia articles but most of which don't -- and the articles that exist tend to be substubs. (Example: "Kentucky Karma is a team in the National Women's Football Association.") There is no useful information in this article (nothing to merge), so redirect back to National Women's Football Association. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 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 speedy del: vandalism page move. mikka (t) 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Marcvs2[edit]

Delete. This page was created by a user going by the name Guillermo en las ruedas, probably a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels. It was an unexplained move from my talk page to that one. Marcus2 14:39, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Could this be speedied under CSD:G3 vandalism, since it was originally just a wholesale copy of Marcus2's userpage? (Just askin'.) PacknCanes 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, vandalism. the wub "?!" 19:44, 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 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 McDonnell Douglas. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

McDonnell Douglas MD 902 Explorer[edit]

Appears to be a hoax; most of the material is copied from Ben Folds. Pretzelpaws 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Pretzelpaws 20:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, then redirect to List of helicopter models or McDonnell Douglas. --Apyule 06:47, 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. --18:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Media Portal[edit]

I've never heard the term used this way, and a search with google picks up the term "Media Portal" being used as a term for various things to do with multimedia, not just an internet application. Delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup (if not then, delete) This article as it stands is almost worthless. but the term itself may be worthwhile to write a proper entry for. Bwithh 04:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After years of being around computer people and the theoretical hypermedia sort, I've never heard these words put together this way. This would require massive expansion to be more than a dicdef (for a term of uncertain notability/verifiability anyway), and I don't see that happening. Anville 09:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not cleaned up during vfd. Its a plausible term but certainly not one in widespread use. Dlyons493 Talk 10:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered at Web portal, term is not notable enough to warrant a redirect. the wub "?!" 20:05, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merovee Philosopher's Guilde[edit]

The secret is so well-kept that I have been unable to verify the existence of this society. Delete unless some reputable third-party source can be found. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable - searching at [19] gives nothing. Kept secret from the university also! Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should probably not breach the "secret" since its been so very well kept. (In case you miss the humor, that translates as NN vanity.) KillerChihuahua 01:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too secret for wikipedia, unverifiable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:32, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Allen Messick Jr.[edit]

Apparently a vanity page. The creating IP is known to have been causing problems. Simesa 20:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks like vanity to me. Delete. PacknCanes 03:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. MCB 06:58, 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 speedy nn-bio mikka (t) 23:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Soares[edit]

Nn-bio and hoax. Unfortunately crafted to avoid speedy deletion.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 13:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy—I don't see any "remotely plausible" assertion of importance or significance. Calling oneself a "demi-god" or a "confidante of Condoleeza Rice" doesn't qualify as remotely plausible IMHO. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a speedy delete; the article doesn't say Soares invented the Internet or the Furby, just that he claims to have done so. That's not an assertion of notability. --Metropolitan90 14:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with speedy delete. Nothing remotely plausible. Kappa 15:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, I tagged it as nn-bio. I thought it better to get some feedback as it did make (bogus) notability claims. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:20, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Visual Studio/Using static libraries[edit]

This article isn't an encyclopedia article, it's more of a howto. Timbatron 17:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a manual. chowells 19:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per chowells. --Apyule 06:38, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad abdullah al faruque[edit]

Not notable, subject gets 554 google hits. Punkmorten 15:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anon user - can't userfy. No assertion of notability. Dlyons493 Talk 16:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 13 hits[20] once search string is in quotation marks
Delete, borderline speedy--his schooling and job are hardly an assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 19:40, 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 and lol. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Appliance Boy[edit]

neologism Qaz ^(talk) 09:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't think of anything worse than being 'human waist'. Except maybe 'human armpit'. Delete. --Last Malthusian 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Qaz. — JIP | Talk 10:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute nonsense, and spelling appalling.(though I shouldn't throw rocks as I live in a glass house...)Bug42 16:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. What a waist of an article.--Isotope23 19:11, 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 del: verifiably nonsense. mikka (t) 23:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nolehead[edit]

Hoax. Neither 'Nolehead rodent', 'Nolehead species' nor 'alexia namonia' shows up in the Google test, except that a "nolehead" seems to be something to do with Florida State University football team mascot. Delete. -- The Anome 11:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax.--Exir Kamalabadi ^Esperanza 12:34, 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 delete. Wikiacc (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuncyspungen[edit]

Band vanity - no notability mentioned Cnwb 06:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 08:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bandcruft and AMG turns up no results (and nothing even remotely near that name, either). PacknCanes 17:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a reference to Nancy Spungen. But it's an unlikely spelling mistake, so Delete. Jkelly 16:46, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Be File System[edit]

Absolute nonsense. Please do not confuse with OpenBFS which is real. AlistairMcMillan 08:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 08:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty safe to assume that you want your own nom deleted unless you specify otherwise. Regardless, redirect to OpenBFS, since this looks to be the long form thereof. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for the long form of OpenBFS? Google search returns over 14,000 results for "OpenBFS", 10 for "Open BeOS File System" (mostly forum postings and half of which are dups) and 7 for "Open Be File System" (again mostly forum postings, nothing official and mostly dups). I think they avoid using a long form because the names BeOS and "Be File System" are probably owned by Palm. AlistairMcMillan 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism with no real tie to OpenBFS. Open Be File System is purported to be part of the currently non-existant Project Tiger OS. Based on Google results it doesn't appear that the term "Open Be File System" is ever used in relation to OpenBFS or any Be File System in general.--Isotope23 17:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. mikka (t) 23:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. --Apyule 06:05, 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 and move to Panic! At the Disco. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panic! At the Disco[edit]

~~2005 formed band [21] and with the only, new album, A Fever You Can't Sweat Out. Not notable. feydey 23:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)~~ After the good work by Capitalistroadster i'd say keep and move to Panic! At the Disco. feydey 14:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm "A Fever You Can't Sweat Out" gets 118,000 google hits, so I'm going vote keep. Kappa 00:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that's it's Amazon sales rank is 347. Kappa 00:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as per WP:music. They appear to be a relatively new band but their album has so far reached number 112 on the Billboard charts, #1 on the Heatseeker chart and top 10 of the Billboard indy chart see [22]. They were Spin's band of the day last week see [23] and are currently undertaking a tour of the US and Canada. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Seem to be attracting plenty of media coverage according to this Google News search. [24] Capitalistroadster 01:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup as per Capitalistroadster Qaz ^(talk) 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per above. They're notable. PacknCanes 03:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up and expanded this article. No change of vote from Keep. Article should be moved after completion of AfD to Panic! At the Disco. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, move. Meets WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 17:05, 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.

{I also think we should note that P!ATD=love} [Love Ginger, #1 P!ATD Fan] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.3.114 (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2007 (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 speedy del nonsense: A Pepperonomous is a form of livestock which is slaughtered for the production of many products: chiefly, pepperoni.. mikka (t) 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperonomous[edit]

Nonsense--MONGO 08:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but read it first...kind of funny.--MONGO 08:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nonsense -- Malo 09:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read then Delete as per MONGO Dlyons493 Talk 10:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's nonsense, but it's funny nonsense. Merge into WP:BJAODN. PacknCanes 17:19, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PHE[edit]

Blatent vanity, advertising, link spam, etc, but unfortunately WP:CSD doesn't apply. RoySmith 22:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost CSD A3, but contains too much cooporate doublespeak.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a free billboard. --Vsion 22:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement, written in first person. Martg76 22:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, slightly obscuring blatant, uninteresting advertising with an apparent disambiguation is neither big nor clever. Or encyclopedic. Sliggy 23:59, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasantblue[edit]

Pleasantblue is an arty website with no followers. Pilatus 22:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry is just silly.Harvestdancer 22:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete website cruft. KillerChihuahua 00:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
pleasantblue is about to be deleted. -- Captain Disdain 00:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

appeal: pleasantblue doesnt seek followers: it's supposed to be silly by definition. it hardly seems any one else will have a definition for 'pleasantblue', so its not possible for it to confuse anyone by leaving silly information about it. pleasantblue is built on 'koans' which are paradoxical and silly. pleasantblue is not kipple, and has nothing to do with software. it IS however, just silly. [Oct 14 2005 8:31am PST MG]

It is certainly true that the article is perfectly harmless. However, it is also perfectly useless. Wikipedia is not a place for perfectly useless articles about unencyclopedic topics in general, and silly ones in particular. -- ��Captain Disdain 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- fair enough: i'm truly not attempting to take up space on the server with uselessness, but am trying to define a concept, that is an active process, albeit silly. i do understand why it's seen as useless, and have no intent to move beyond the scope of what wikipedia is, but feel a few 'wild cards' in the mix is fairly representative of the dynamic nature of the internet and human culture in itself. (part of what pleasantblue is about). thank you for your input. i remain pleadful, for 'non-deletion consideration'. [Oct 14 2005 - MG]
  - Sure. I don't disagree at all; it certainly is fairly representative of the dynamic nature of the internet and human culture in itself. But Wikipedia is not really here to showcase either. It's a project to build an encyclopedia. I have nothing but respect for projects like yours, silly or not, but Wikipedia isn't designed to include things like this. It just isn't a place for experiments, soapboxes, artistic statements and whatnot. (That said, a new and separate Wiki project could certainly be created to accommodate things like pleasantblue -- might be something for you to look into, if you're interested.) -- �Captain Disdain 20:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if we accept one article like this, we can't really say "no" to anyone else who want to use wikipedia as a medium of expression rather than an compendium of existing knowledge. Kappa 23:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Words are concepts and are defined by whom? And what of 'nonce words' such as 'sniglet'. These truly warrant entries in an encyclopedia and are 'existing knowledge', as does pleasantblue.

It is a matter of values[edit]

The page for pleasantblue seems in outward appearance to be divergent to the conventions of Wikipedia. And yet if such as pleasantblue did not make appearance in Wikipedia then the world of "acceptable human knowledge" would be impoverished to the extent of accepting only the commonly acceptable. In my own view, this would be a tragic mistake. Inspiration comes in many forms from the most humble to the most impressive. Most always, it is silly. Nonetheless, the creative process should never ever be disregarded or otherwise ignored without timely consideration of what may be involved. I also think that a Wiki project closely associated with Wikipedia to accommodate such inventive thinking as pleasantblue would be appropriate. stardance 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"In outward appearance," my ass. And it's not being discarded or ignored. It's not like it's being wiped from the sphere of human knowledge, just because it doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia. -- Captain Disdain 22:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a hastily thought out comment. Thankyou for confirming my own afterthoughts. I see that MG has conceded however I am still interested in a Wiki project associated with Wikipedia that covers the huge area of human endeavour that is not classed as being within existing knowledge, and yet is essential or otherwise useful to the progress of human civilisation. I have no idea how to select such items. An interesting question in itself. My respects. stardance 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

conceded: your argument is clear and founded. i especially understand the concern with 'setting precedence', it shan't be pressed further. however, the "compendium of existing knowledge" - sits a little rough. there are many things i wouldn't have known existed, until i was made aware of them, often by looking them up in an encyclopedia, after having 'heard of them'.

a taste of revolutionary art shaking up dominant wiki paradigm gets my vote. knowledge can become sterile and meaningless without reference to the unknowable. a touch of randomness and aesthetic 'nonsense' is in the tradition of the playful seriousness of the 1913 armory show, the insurrectionary sarcasms of the modernists. yes, it is an unusual entry, but i would venture, that given opportunity, the page could grow and become more relevant and meaningful. i agree that leaving the page opens the door to other unusual entries. i'd like to see if the definition evolves before it's deleted. - 'mabel dodge'

and tenderness

I think it was around the 15th century in Italy that artists originally started signing their names to their works. (I havent come to a firm reference for this yet.) Observing the consequent train of celebrity and acclaim, perhaps it would have been better if it were otherwise. For joy. Just silly painstaking wonderful joy.

communion: If whales, sharks and suchlike communicate over huge distances within a conductive medium, one might well assume they live within a state of continuous togetherness. When looking at the planet Earth, what really is the difference between water and air in terms of conductivity? And what songs do humankind sing? Instinctively.

Not that I don't enjoy a good dose of horseshit every once in a while, but howzabout we concentrate on the matter at hand instead of pretending that we're discussing a profound matter that has tremendous consequences on every level of the human experience? Yo, admin types -- since even the original author of the piece agrees that the article should go, could we just speedy this damn thing and move on to more important things? -- �Captain Disdain 02:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. tregoweth 03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and since when was the Armory Show playful? It was intended to be scandalous, and it was. Chick Bowen 19:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A possible context[edit]

Three billion new capitalists. Just think. Drinking water, anyone?

A confusion of locations[edit]

i suppose it really comes down to "does pleasantblue exist"? it seems to. -'mabel dodge'

No, it doesn't come down to that. -- Captain Disdain 10:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- if this discussion isn't about whether pleasantblue exists or not, whether or not it warrants an entry in an encyclopedia or "compendium of existing knowledge", then it seems that such a compendium doesn't exist for it to be entered into. (oct 15 '05) (-reworded)
  - perhaps this is because pleasantblue appears to follow the laws of infernal dynamics
dont forget the tenderness...

A mess of scenarios[edit]

A bevy of small strangers made entrance through the city gate, knocking first on the door of a modern and most public pavilion with a modicum of trepidation and some more innocent (some might say naive) playfulness. They were received by the inhabitants with generous consideration; dignified yet subtle assistance; and patient observance of their confusion at finding themselves within such an place of middling-high esteem. All in all, it was a respectful yet pleasant meeting and looks likely to further enable the search for chocolate. Oh, yes, and toes. stardance waves gracefully...
The people were no longer satisfied with "A is for apple". There was a newly formed Institution for the Conservation of Z. Something had made simple words heavy with implicit meaning, as if carved in stone. Standardised spelling was remembered as if it were a quaint aberration within history. Even slight typographic mistakes took on a freshness and vitality that was hereto unrealised. It was the time of reseeding.

The Tao of Replication[edit]

I say keep it. Or delete it now and wind up admitting it later, to your chagrin. After all, at what point does a meme become "successful"? How many people need to have formed a part of a movement before it can be said to exist? What's in a name? A rose by any other name? Taoism? Dada? What? Zen? What what?? Paradox? How can this be? What? How can What be? What? What is nothing? Nothing's gotta be something to be in here. I say delete all the entries in the Wikiverse because any attempt to describe Reality must ultimately fail. The map is not the territory, the word is not the thing. God, Brahma, Truth? What? Lies! What are we talking about? -BGood- (P.S. - Why are there entries for Unicorns?)

I was almost entirely liquid, wholly holey and yet still immersed in a few of life's confusions? I slept a little and before waking heard a male voice saying almost as a question, though slightly more as an gentle exclamation, "Back-existing!?!" Though slightly surprised (really not being one for dreams or unseen voices), now I am still, quiet, and thinking around and about What it may be spoken..."Back existing!?!" stardance 19:57, 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 keep. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porkbusters[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This seems to me like nothing more than a massive, blog-based astroturfing campaign. The only thing that linked here was the pork barrel article, though I had already removed the link while copy-editing the article, since it didn't seem to have any value at all and appeared to have been spammed by Porkbusters supporters. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Expand. Porkbusters has received widespread media coverage in its attempt to highlight wasteful spending by the US Government see [25] The effort was co-founded by Instapundit a leading blogger. Already 246,000 Google results for a campaign founded a month and a half ago is pretty impressive in my book. [26] This campaign highlights dissatisfaction by conservatives and libertarians over high levels of Government spending in recent years. Capitalistroadster 06:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Capitalistroadster. --badlydrawnjeff 13:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Capitalistroadster as this is a media covered phenomenon, though I'm tempted to AfD the blogcruft Capitalistroadster mentioned in his reason...--Isotope23 18:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to Instapundit, that's not blogcruft. It is one of the most widely-read blogs in the world is not hyperbole. android79 03:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was... and I was joking. Even I would not advocate deleting what is probably one of the 5 most widely read blogs on the internet. Guess I forgot my <sarcasm> tags. On a side note, it is interesting to read many of the votes here; I think the long term significance and effectiveness of Porkbusters is being vastly over-rated... but maybe I'm just cynical from too many years of following politics. --Isotope23 20:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Temporary Internet fame does not an encyclopedic article make. Please stop encouraging people to cram Wikipedia with publicity stunts. / Peter ^Isotalo 00:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For the moment, I would suggest leaving it. It seems pretty notable, and several hundred thousand hits for a campaign that's been running for a just over a month is pretty impressive. If in a few months time all the hype dies down, and it proves itself to be nothing more than a fad, at that time I would advocate deletion, but for the time being, if I had to make a choice, I would say Keep. Saberwyn 05:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a serious attempt to address a serious political and economic problem, and probably one of greater long term significance than, say, Cindy Sheehan. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is it's ability to address "flash topics." - Lawrence Person

Keep. "Massive blog-based astroturfing campaign?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? The "porkbusters" effort isn't being pushed by a single organization or even party; it's an entirely voluntary and yes, grass-roots movement. I could just as easily say that the Cindy Sheehan hysteria in August was a "massive media-based astroturfing campaign on behalf of a marginal band of leftie radicals." That wouldn't give me the right to ban any mention of it from a public forum.
Keep TDC 17:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons already listed. --Viper Daimao 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons already listed. Additionally, it appears very likely that this campaign will mark a seismic shift in the country's approach to federal spending and earmarks for a particular district. As such, it will also be a seminal point in the growing influence of citizen journalism on public policy.

[User:lblanchard\lblanchard]]

Strong KeepIt's a real issue - plenty of good reasons already given and Im not even a Yank or in the States. --Nick-in-South-Africa 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As long as the article maintains a NPOV, I see absolutely no reason to delete the article. Keithius 18:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As long as the article maintains a NPOV, I see absolutely no reason to delete the article. Keithius 18:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nothing could be more relevant 20 years in the future. A glimpse of how the people of America stood up against the underhanded dealings that hurt the American tax-payer (and for reasons listed) --theclanoneill 1:10, 13 October 2005 (CST)
Strong Keep "a seminal point in the growing influence of citizen journalism on public policy" - BINGO! Brendano 18:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.

Strong KeepThis is a big time project, and certainly, as noted above, has more impact that Cindy Sheehan. As a result of this project, there has already been committments to return almost $100,000,000 in specific cuts, while many more representatives have pledged to do the same. If this doesn't deserve notice, I don't know what does.
Strong Keep and Expand Porkbusters is notable now and has great potential to morph into a permanent political movement. If they succeed in getting offsets for Katrina relief, they'll deserve a permanent entry. If they fail, then perhaps in two or three years this entry should be deleted. Danlovejoy 18:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whether or not ya like it, it's certainly notable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--this is a watershed movement in the blogosphere and the American conservative movement, and is therefore notable. Philip Taron 21:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand This effort has apparently already found some results; it is certainly significant enough for Wikipedia. gavindow 21:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems obvious opposition to this is ideologically-based, contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Presently, there's no reason whatsoever to delete it. If it comes to naught, it can always be removed when that becomes clear. For now, though, it's news. A better rewrite would be a good thing, though. Jdb1972 21:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand. A major political campaign conducted through the new media--what could be more worthy of an article on Wikipedia?--Amargo Scribe 21:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a nascent and important political movement with some very high profile sponsors. Jtmichcock 21:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It could use some editing to make the overall appearence cleaner and have more information on what is involved with the 'movement' but there is no good reason to have the entry deleted other then politically motivation.
Strong Keep Disagreeing with a group of people does not make their efforts "blog-based astroturfing". More fundamentally, even if the phrase were accurate, it would not follow that the article should be deleted. The criticism is silly and shallow.
Strong Keep This is an example of a truly grassroots political phenomenon and will persist independent of what Wikipedia does.
Keep per Capitalistroadster. Greetings, Instapundit readers. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but please keep in mind that input from very new user accounts is routinely discounted on AfD – this policy is in place to combat the swarm of "one-issue voters," if you will, that shows up when one of the most popular blogs links to a particular discussion, for instance. As it stands now, this article is unlikely to be deleted. If you came here from Instapundit and just created a Wikipedia account, please consider not voting, as you will only complicate the closing out of this discussion by the administrator who does it. android 79 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but I have gotten into the habit of checking Wikipedia whenever I come across new terms such as this. Perhaps when the movement is finished and the term is no longer floating around it would be appropriate to revisit the decision.

That's basically what I'm thinking. If it fizzles out and turns out to have been ineffective, it will presumably be less noteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have nearly as much of a problem with it now that it doesn't just read like a content-free spamming attempt to make it sound more established than it is. I would withdraw the AfD if I didn't think it were already going to be kept anyway. My apologies to people who have taken offense at my wording, but I stand by it; if nothing else, we apparently have very different definitions. Thanks to the people who have helped turn it into a real article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic Keep: Even if Porkbusters itself is a short-lived phenomenon (possible but not certain), it's emblematic of the way the new, grass-roots media works, in ephemeral fits and starts that occasionally catch and move mountains. As such, it's useful. Mitchberg 12:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't need to add anything, do I? — Sandstein 13:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Expand: Just as 9/11 caused some political realignments to take place, the Katrina rebuilding efforts are causing them as well. Anything that can get the Republican base aligned with Nancy Pelosi is worth a closer examination. The Monster 14:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic Keep: I would of course be pleased to see the entry kept, but that's up to the Wikipedia community. If it is kept, however, I'd ask that the URL for the main porkbusters page be corrected, as it has a typo now. The correct url is http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters. -N.Z. Bear
- Fixed the typo. You are welcome to make any other improvements to the article, even while it is being considered for deletion, except for merging its content elsewhere or changing the article's name. android 79 14:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you should consider putting a 301 "moved permanently" redirect in if you intend to make that URL canonical. This will help search engines realize that the .php version should not be used. I've done this many times on relatively high-traffic pages and never had any trouble with PageRank dropping or anything like that. —HorsePunchKid→龜 16:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least until history decides if this is the beginning of a movement, or a flash in the pan. At the very least, it's a nation-wide call for debate on the buying of votes by Congress.
Stong Keep: This is the start of a movement that is getting national media coverage. I believe that this will have its place in history as the end of the wall between the wants of government and those of private citizens. -lilbrocool 21:07, 14 October 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Gear. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power gear[edit]

Stunts cruft. Little to no real context of this article. At best it should be merged with the Stunts page, at worse it should be straight up deleted. Malo 09:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge, this is at least NPOV and factual (unlike the other two noms) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gear as more people who end up here will want to go there than to the Stunts page. --Apyule 06:08, 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 transwiki to Wikisource. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.[edit]

Paste of a court ruling, not an article

Delete. Gazpacho 20:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikisource if possible, otherwise Delete unless someone writes an actual article here (I'd do it but I don't know anything about this case).--Isotope23 20:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, then delete. This is a trial court order, not an appellate court judgment that declares new law - it might be a notable case, but it's one of many dozens like it against the tobacco industry, so an actual article on the case would probably be either redundant to the whole class of cases or very stubby, and either way would likely benefit from a merger into an article on tobacco litigation. I was thinking that if Wikisource is to be a repository of court orders, it would be better to start from the top, but then again it's always useful to have examples of opinions from different levels of court. BD2412 ^talk 21:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Move/Merge as the trial is notable in a minor way as supporting information in other source material. It does not qualify to stand alone as it is not one of the benchmark cases, and there is no true "article" included. If the author reads this feedback before the 5-day period, and still feels this is worthy of an entry, I suggest a significant rewrite in narrative/expository format including whatever information justifies an independent entry. el_amante 20:56, 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 delete. Wikiacc (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Fundamental Right[edit]

Delete Advertising and or spam not notable--MONGO 09:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as advertising, researched the author and came up with this as the only place that mentions the PFR or the author besides the WP article. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. If the PFR had ever been used successfully as a defense in a Canadian criminal case I'd vote differently. As it stands this is just more personal diatribe (with 3 Google hits) than useful information.--Isotope23 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn legal crackpottery, with no wide acceptance of its existence. MCB 06:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If the PFR had ever been used successfully as a defense in a Canadian criminal case I'd vote differently." Canada's most famous fugitive from the American drug wars Renee Boje is the 11th signatory to the PFR petition. The word diatribe means "A bitter, abusive denunciation." if you had read the PFR you would see that there is nothing bitter or abusive in it.

Wide acceptance should not be a criteria. Over 200 people believe enough in the Primary Fundamental Right to risk the wrath of the police state by signing the PFR petition. Many others endorse its principles privately. {Bernard Palmer|220.239.49.36|12:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)}}

Please do not confuse "wide acceptance of the principle itself as positive law" with "wide acceptance of the existence of the principle as a well-known, verifiable theory of law". Wikipedia does not, indeed, require the former; but it does require the latter, and there is no evidence of that. MCB 02:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The UN declaration on human rights accepts the principle of mans right to own their own bodies when it states there shall be no slavery anywhere. The Primary Fundamental Right is a title for this embodiment. Bernard Palmer

Delete. Neologism loosely related to right to privacy. Chick Bowen 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is neologism a bad thing? Quote Chick Bowen, "Wikipedia is wonderful, but it is scattershot—its function is to present as much information as possible without distinguishing within it. That is its chief strength." (Unsigned comment by User:220.239.49.36. — CB)

Neologism is not a bad thing, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, per community consensus and the will of our founder. I certainly didn't mean that statment to defend anything that anyone puts into Wikipedia. On the contrary, my point about the strength of not distinguishing between categories of knowledge is that we can devote 10% of our resources to Pokemon crap and not impact our treatment of Alcaeus. But that doesn't mean we should put forward your original idea as if it were encyclopedic. Chick Bowen 23:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 I have made major changes, there is no advertising. Please review before deleting. Bernard Palmer

Reviewed. It's still your idea and not a pre-existing one. How can an encyclopedia put forward a claim about what Madison would have done were it not for slavery? Anyway, please see Wikipedia:No original research for the policy in question here. Chick Bowen 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication;". I agree the Primary Fundamental Right has not been published in any reputable publication that I know of. The Primary Fundamental Right is very much a child of the Internet, it was born of the Internet, is disseminated by the Internet. No idea so precise and simple could have bloomed anywhere else. Same as Wiki. "the will of [[Jimmy Wales|our founder" was much influenced by Ayne Rand. The Primary Fundamental Right is a bible for 'Objectivists' who advocate laissez-faire capitalism, Jimbo's perfect society. I guarantee if you ask Jimbo to click on the link to 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right' he would recognize the important role the PFR could play in changing society for the better. It is such a simple concept that its real beauty is in its simplicity. Imagine everyone legally owning their own body. It sounds preposterous but none of us in this wonderful technological age actually do. We let it slip away and it is sliding faster and faster. The Mises Institute anticipates totalitarianism will engulf the USA early this century. I think they are right that's why I built the PFR. That's why I am pressing my case with you. I want you to see that just because it hasn't been accepted by the 'elites' it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bernard Palmer

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Tiger OS[edit]

Absolute nonsense AlistairMcMillan 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely non-verifiable. What the heck were they thinking naming it the same thing as the Mac OS distro?--Isotope23 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and non-existent... in development OS. Forgot to mention that.--Isotope23 17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that proves this is actually in development and not a figment of someone's imagination? Just curious. I couldn't find anything on it. AlistairMcMillan 18:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, whether he has written 100,000 lines of code or just dreams about writing his own OS over a bowl of cheerios, the net effect is the same: No verifiable existence. I couldn't find any reference to real development either though.--Isotope23 19:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. --Apyule 06:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I can't verify it, this could be related to "Tiger OS" and "Petasoft" (see votes here and here respectively) - some awfully vague operating system project "based on Linux and FreeDOS" or something. Especially when the earliest version of the article rambles stuff about Windows Vista and stuff. Even if this is completely unrelated to those, this stuff is not yet notable unless they have an actual release out, or some show of an active development community (which is to say a website up, even preliminary, and publicly viewable CVS/etc repository which shows they have bazillion lines of code and new hyuuge commits coming in every week). As it stands, this is completely, utterly unverifiable. Plus I find absolutely nothing on google about the author either. --Wwwwolf 11:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with all of the above.Rhetoricalwater 22:24, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Tiger os[edit]

Absolute nonsense AlistairMcMillan 08:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 08:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as blank article. It is basically a blank mirror of Project Tiger OS, which is already going through the normal AfD process.--Isotope23 17:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but if kept redirect to Project Tiger OS if that gets kept too. --Apyule 06:03, 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 Speedy Delete - A1/G1 Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Purwell[edit]

Speedy Delete Nonsence and vandalism. Mylakovich 13:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. You can use a speedy delete tag like {{db|Nonsense and vandalism}} for this kind of thing, instead of AFD. Kappa 13:50, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quonsar[edit]

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism this is not. Instead, this is rambling babble without encyclopedic merit. I don't feel it's quite a speedy, though. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, Please allow this article to remain while more information on this subject is prepared for this entry. Please note that a google search on the subject of this article, "quonsar", yields over 30,000 hits which may serve as proof of the relevance and value of this topic. Thank you very much. More information to be provided soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.197.2 (talk • contribs)

Of which 155 are unique. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For context, "Flying Spaghetti Monster" has 500,000 total / 674 unique, and that's a far more restrictive search string (more words = more potential for misspelling or rephrasing) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable blogging deity. Holding this up to the FSM ruler, it is not in the same league, as Lomn pointed out... though I must admit I'm somewhat partial to FSM since I was touched by his noodly appendage.--Isotope23 20:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

So now he's just a blogger? That makes me almost want to go strong delete--Isotope23 00:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, If you expect every Wiki entry to be as recognizable as FSM, then you'll have a lot of deleting to do as people add articles about subjects which interest them but are not as widely known as the FSM meme and therefore cannot measure up to such an arbitrary comparison. The article in question has been modified to provide more information. Please do not assert your deletion powers today upon this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.197.2 (talk • contribs)
- I don't see how anyone this article can interest anyone but its subject. --Last Malthusian 22:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it won't be deleted via AfD today. If you'd like to modify the article to add more information, you'lll have some time to do that. Jessamyn 22:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be snide, but as you can see, we already have a lot of deleting to do because of non-notable articles. Anyway, I've offered FSM as a comparable benchmark, not as a hard and fast rule, and the community consensus will dictate whether or not the article is kept. I will note, however, that "Quonsar is suspected to have an astronomical IQ" is not likely to improve the article's quality. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOQZILLA SMASH QUONSAR-DELETING WIKIPEDIA EDITORS. QUONSAR-DELETING WIKIPEDIA EDITORS DELICIONS LIKE BAD CANDY. LOQZILLA NEVER VISIT WIKIPEDIA EVER AGAIN, EVEN AFTER VISITING IT AN DONATING TO IT SINCE THE BEGINNING* (preceding unsigned comment by 68.228.251.85 (talk · contribs) 17:22, October 12, 2005)

Delete, vanity. --Last Malthusian 22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blogging non-deity. Would reconsider if notability could be established, or information could be independently verified. Having your own small cult is not in and of itself notable. Jessamyn 22:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blog vanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above. — mendel ☎ 01:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - EurekaLott 01:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per embarrassed quonsar. 03:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. --Wedge 02:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if jessamyn gets hers, quonsar should get his. (preceding unsigned comment by 151.202.74.144 (talk · contribs) 02:10, October 13, 2005)
- Note that Jessamyn Charity West only barely snuck by its own VfD, even with an assertion of notability in an industry publication and mentions in Wired magazine, DNC press credentials and publication history. — mendel ☎ 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of deleting this, it's not like there is anyone else or any thing that has the same name. Why do you waste time on deleting this when there are so many stubs that need to be fleshed out. (preceding unsigned comment by 132.239.50.20 (talk · contribs) 13:26, October 13, 2005)
Keep and flag for cleanup. I don't think anybody would claim that the article should remain in its current, rather silly form, but quonsar is a notable personality on several of the web's more notable sites. Jacobw 12:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. 207.216.186.96 19:50, 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, the content is on Webcomic Wiki now, there's no need to Transwiki and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't belong here. Rx StrangeLove 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rave Kitty[edit]

A webcomic which can be found here, hosted on comicgenesis/keenspace. Although listed on the Alexa rankings of ComicGenesis it is not one of the more popular comics, being that most are still hosted on the keenspace domain. Relatively new with just over 50 strips uploaded, furthermore, a google search shows no mention of notability for the website. If this were a website, it would have been deleted, but because it has a webcomics stub instead of a website stub, it makes it so much more elusive. It shouldn't be so. As of writing, there is no entry for this at Comixpedia, is Wikipedia becoming the first port of call for webcomic artists? Let's do something about it. - Hahnchen 14:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are the licenses of this wiki and Wikipedia compatible? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be. It uses the GFDL, and I think it uses the same cover texts. Someone who knows a bit more than I do should take a look, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, yes. They're both GFDL, and the Webcomic Wiki has a blurb at the bottom of the main page stating that their license is compatible with that of Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. enceph alon 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting. Not enough votes the first time. --Woohookitty 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though non-notable comics are featured in wikipedia (such as Cat Town), this does not mean that everything is OK, regardless of any ranking! bjelleklang 11:21, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replay handling[edit]

Stunts cruft. Little to no real context of this article. At best it should be merged with the Stunts page, at worse it should be straight up deleted. Malo 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing NPOV/verifiable to merge here — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Apyule 06:06, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resol[edit]

Non-notable and slangdef. --fvw * 00:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN --Rogerd 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
article was submitted as a legitimate notation of current slang/contemporary vernacular - can be edited to be less personalised?--Aneetamenon 01:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Ban e s 08:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it a nn neologism, it's a nn neologism from a nn forum. Could it get any worse? the wub "?!" 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it could be an nn neologism from an nn forum in an nn conlang… --fvw * 19:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —nn. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:18, 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: obviously erroneous nomination of a user page. 02:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Rhobite/SamuraiClinton articles[edit]

What an out-of-date article about a mere list of mostly redlinks.

Delete as referenceless listcruft. --SuperDude 01:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't belong on articles for deletion, anything but main namespace goes on WP:MfD. But there's no reason to delete this, if Rhobite wants it gone he can delete it and if he doesn't he can keep it. It's his user space and I don't see how this is disruptive. --fvw * 01:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It is a user space page and not subject to VfD even by superdudes without asking the owner politely first why the heck he keeps this. mikka (t) 02:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't delete user pages. --CastAStone 02:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't even looked at the article and don't need to. Why are you nominating a User page at AfD? -Greg Asche (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author: SuperDude, I wish you would have asked me to remove this instead of nominating it for AfD. I don't think it's necessary to track your edits any more, so I'll nominate this page for speedy deletion myself. Rhobite 17:05, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gibbs[edit]

Vanity page on a high school student in Georgia; only indication of notability is that he is president of the Georgia Junior Classical League, which falls short of our inclusion criteria. Possibly an autobiography. jredmond 20:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd even go so far as to say Speedy CSD:A7, though I'm sure someone will say there is an attempt to establish notability. I'd argue that when your claim to fame is "president of the Georgia Junior Classical League" you are not trying very hard...--Isotope23 20:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another A7 Speedy Delete candidate even if he is champion of Latin" in Georgia. How do you achieve this? Capitalistroadster 00:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Speedy Delete agree with all points noted above. The subject certainly has potential to be notable enough at some point, but not just yet. The author can assure him that once he gets a few years out of high school, he could be considered again, based on his accumulated achievements. el_amante 21:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per above two. PacknCanes 03:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I know this kid. He's absolutely brilliant. I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes a President.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rung[edit]

Dictionary definintion, already in Wiktionary as rung (Definition 1 under Noun). — Kjammer ⌂ 05:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. GTBacchus 05:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and can't be expanded that I can think of. Qaz ^(talk) 05:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, possibly using material from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. [27] Kappa 09:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How much more can be expanded beyond dic-def? Even if the 1911 Britanica article was coppied word for word, it'll still be a dictionary definition. Because all it says is what the word means in English, Scottish, and Old English, all of witch can be covered in a dictionary entry. Best solutions I can come up with are expanding the Wiktionary definition, and/or merge with ladder. — Kjammer ⌂ 17:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa, exactly what part of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" do you not agree with? / Peter ^Isotalo 00:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There isn't much in the Britannica that would ever advance this past a substub. PacknCanes 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, echoing above. Dottore So 21:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A rung is a rung is a rung. That's what the Wiktionary is for. - Sensor 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, foppish japery. Proto t c 11:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:09, 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 speedy keep: a complete rewrite. mikka (t) 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runny Babbit[edit]

~~General sillyness~~ RoySmith 02:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I withdraw my delete vote as nominator; with Isotope23's rewrite, this is an obvious keeper. It's actually kind of cool; we went from a request for speedy delete, to AfD, to a keepable article, all in less than a day. At this rate, we'll have a Featured Article candidate by the end of the voting period :-) --RoySmith 18:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement with a bit of nonsense thrown in. Silly, but not good enough for BJAODN. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not silly as an article, it's just about Shel Silverstein's last book. Delete since all the information is already in the Shel Silverstein article. --Metropolitan90 03:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book appears to have widely reviewed and is by a notable author. I would vote to keep a decent stub. However, this is an article stating that the author hasn't read the book but you should. I will vote to delete it unless a decent stub or article is written. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shel Silverstein. --Apyule 07:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. PacknCanes 17:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote the article.... please take a look. Several of his other books have individual articles. Beyond that, several other children's authors have books with individual articles. Barring keep though, I'd go with a redirect.--Isotope23 17:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. Good work, sir -- I change my vote to keep. PacknCanes 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Isotope23's good little stub. Thanks to him for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice work! the wub "?!" 20:03, 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 keep. Wikiacc (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Kappen[edit]

nn, bio page. Kertrats | Talk 15:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep. Arguably the most famous liberation theologist from India

Ase -- 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. 160 google hits confirm existence, and really aren't that bad for a non-English theologian. I've cleaned up the article somewhat.--Scimitar ^parley 15:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable and published. Dlyons493 Talk 16:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kertrats and Dlyons493. Hall Monitor 21:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable liberation theologist. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon chan[edit]

Supposedly the lead singer of "The Simon Chan Band", which gets 0 google hits. The rest of the article is either nn or at best unverified. A search reveals that Simon Chan does exist, but it portrays a totally different character. Another Simon Chan was featured on the ABC Queensland radio programme Conversation Hour: "Here's a relatively unknown chap… a barrister, one Simon Chan." I say delete unless someone conducts a total rewrite. Punkmorten 17:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Simon Chan band doesn't meet WP:music. The Music Australia site which has records of every Australian musical act of any note doesn't have records of the Simon Chan band [28].A Google search for the Simon Chan band doesn't have any results see [29]. Almost an A7 speedy as none of the other biographical details listed namely former Chinese soldier and martial artist are an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't even tell if this is simply a vanity page or a simple hoax. The lack of independent support for this entry seals the deal, unfortunately. If this person is legitimately worthy of inclusion, the article will need to be rewritten with supporting information and further clarity. el_amante 20:45, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Taco[edit]

Almost certainly a hoax. Also, Elraldo Sanchez, which I came this close to speedying RoySmith 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: several people have left messages about this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sinn Taco. I know it's irregular, but it hardly seems worth the effort to move them over here --RoySmith 00:24, 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 speeedy keep: complete rewrite (was a personal attack). mikka (t) 23:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Phiroze Jamshedjee Jeejeebhoy[edit]

Offensive, personal attack Muntfish 13:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as it stands. Muntfish 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... however this might actually be a notable person - Bombay Stock Exchange links here, and Google turns up various legitimate pages under the alternate spelling Phiroze Jamshedji Jeejeebhoy. There's also a WP article at Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy but I'm not 100% sure it's exactly the same person. Muntfish 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Malicious attack on a real person.Bwithh 14:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, as it appears to be the same person. Here's a quote from one of the results, "The BSE is housed in the 28-storied Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers in the same place where the old building once stood. Sir Phiroze Jamshedji Jeejeebhoy was the Chairman of the [Bombay Stock Exchange] Exchange from 1966 till his death in 1980." -- Kjkolb 14:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is the same person that's referred to in the context of the Bombay SE - therefore notable and deserving an article. However this article as it stands now needs way more than just a cleanup - more like throw away and start again. I'm guessing that Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy is related somehow, perhaps an ancestor? Someone knowledgeable needs to sort this out. Muntfish 15:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But in future best not to move pages that are on AfD.Rich Farmbrough 16:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a moronic move on my part, I failed to consider that a redirect wouldn't work for the article's deletion tag. Sorry everybody. I've got to get some sleep. I rewrote it as best I could with the limited information I could find. It's very short, though. -- Kjkolb 16:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since its now cleaned up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:40, 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 Speedied Wikibofh 14:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skychurch[edit]

Was requested as a speedy, doesn't quite meet the patent nonsense rule, but it's not far off RoySmith 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Rogerd 01:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deserves a speedy tad due to its status as an ad for something that will occur before the 5 days expires, but alas, that is not a criteria. --CastAStone 02:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Walter Siegmund 04:48, 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 Move to Soviet invasion of Romania and translate. Physchim62 15:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union invasion[edit]

del, Romanian-langauge text for a valid topic. Delete unless translated during the time this discussion. The creator, User: 86.105.71.34, has a history of contributions in decent English language, and such foreign dump is simply a disrespect to the community. mikka (t) 01:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless translated by close of vote. Linked to by the Romania article but should be named as Soviet invasion of Romania. After all, it certainly wasn't the only invasion launched by the Soviet Union. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS Has a Request for Translation been done for this. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it is the question. But the guy should have thanslated it himself, or asked other people. In fact, there is plenty written in English on this topic. And in wikipedia as well: histories of Bucovina, Bessarabia, Chernivtsi Oblast, etc. He just bluntly dumped it on us. Bad precedent. mikka (t) 02:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, though, he didn't translate it, and we should make the best out of the situation. We're trying to make an encyclopedia, not a complex disciplinary system, so if it's possible to have this translated, it should be translated regardless of whether we're theoretically setting a bad precedent. I don't speak Romanian, so I refrain from voting, but it should go without saying that any action has to wait until after the two weeks on PNT. EldKatt (Talk) 10:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it has been through the translation process. It would be better if someone so inclined wrote an article about the Soviet Invasion of Romania from the start. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for required two weeks, then, if not translated delete. The translation listing seems to be done at "19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)" (shortly after creation). I wish it could be deleted, but it seems that's not allowed. --rob 03:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It can be deleted before it's two weeks are up, if you think that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the Soviet invasion of Romania (e.g. if you think it shoulc be merged into History of Romania). I'm not sure there's much consensus for anything at the moment... Physchim62 16:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the two weeks. Wait until translation process has been finished to see if we have either of (a) a translated article of this article to move to Soviet invasion of Romania or (b) an article written in English on Soviet invasion of Romania or (c) an untranslated article on the same topic. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move while it undergoes translation. the wub "?!" 19:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should be moved to Soviet invasion of Romania, and translated. I'm very concerned that this inappropriate placement on AfD short-circuited the translation process: usually, while an article is on AfD, no one works on translating it. I strongly suggest that if this survives AfD the clock should be reset to allow two weeks for translation, starting then. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen R. Hunter[edit]

President/founder of minor publishing firm, Loft Press. No other info provided. Willmcw 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as a fleshed out entry could be easily worth keeping. An entry with notable books published by Loft Press and/or various notable milestones in the subjects career and/or the history of Loft Press would qualify. Even if this person was indisputably notable, the article is insufficient for inclusion. el_amante 21:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not in any way establish notability; I don't think the company itself is notable enough, so its president certainly isn't. (Unless he's done something I'm not aware of, obviously -- but then again, the article doesn't establish notability.) -- Captain Disdain 01:26, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stu and the frets[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. A shame, the article is cleanly done. 19 matches on google. CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with Chairboy - perhaps we should notify the creator so they can take the content elsewhere for other use (or perhaps use if and when the band becomes noteable per WP:music? KillerChihuahua 00:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the user and preserved the content on a subpage of their user page. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:46, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie Wylie[edit]

Student vanity. Only claim to fame is running for president of the National Union of Students of the United Kingdom. R. fiend 16:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 16:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, I'll abstain from voting becasue she's a friend so I'm not realy neutral. I've beefed the article a bit and included some referances. On the plus side she does hold a national position in the NUS (on block of 12). On the downside so have many people who definatly don't deserve an encycopedia article. She is doing a toor with Gorgous George mabey this will be enough to push her into the relem of the political gliteriti, maby not. In defence of her modesty I don't think it was her who created the page though I can't be sure. --JK the unwise 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student with some activism activity. Good for her for getting involved, but it isn't the sort of thing that gets an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student activists who aspire to mainstream politics just ain't notable. Eddie.willers 19:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as her achievements thus far centre on student activism and peripheral political achievement. I wish her luck for the future, though. Sliggy 23:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree with the prior justifications, including the characterizations of Ms. Wylie as someone of TREMENDOUS potential. I think she will qualify for Wikipedia one day and we will welcome her with open arms. I just don't think she qualifies as sufficiently notable at this time. el_amante 20:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, again I know her (a bit); the article looks quite decent now and is probably verifiable, but there is the notability issue. Warofdreams talk 09:49, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV (band)[edit]

NN/Vanity ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 00:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until their "official MySpace page!" has a Warner or BMG logo on it. See WP:Music --CastAStone 00:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school band with no indication of meeting WP:music. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN --Rogerd 01:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 49,900 google hits on the exact phrase, surely they're famous. Or maybe not. They seem to be more crystal ball than WP:MUSIC. --rob 02:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I moved Tantive iv to Tantive IV (band). I changed the remainging re-direct of Tantive iv to point to Tantive IV, which is probably more well known. --rob 02:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the Google hits for the exact phrase refer to the Star Wars term. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN band / vanity. Cnwb 05:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, and vanity. Per above. Ban e s 08:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any band that advertises an "official MySpace page", of all things, has got to be non-notable. — JIP | Talk 10:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good name, but no WP:MUSIC cigar. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bandanity. the wub "?!" 19:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the reasons cited above. The evidence is clearly overwhelming and the promotional nature of the entry blurs the point of a wikipedia entry. We are informational and not promotional. el_amante 20:26, 12 October 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bolla Quartet[edit]

Looks like band vanity to me. Allmusic hasn't heard of them, and though they claim to have one album, I'm willing to bet it's self-released. They also claim to have been formed 3 days from now, but that's probably a typo. R. fiend 16:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One album would normally not constitute notability anyway, but the touring would. I have no idea if the claims are true, though. Punkmorten 20:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people tend to give a bit too much credit to some "tours" as well. If this one is true, it seems pretty extensive, but some outfits can get in a car, play a few high schools in a couple states, or open for another minor band, playing sparsely attended clubs (or, worse, coffee houses), call it a "national tour" and get a wikipedia article based on that. I don't give too much credit to mere tours, usually. If a band has no recordings, then no one knows what they sound like before they see them, and it's unlikely too many people specifically go to see a band they really know nothing about. -R. fiend 22:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing that the little chap the debate is about is Hungarian, I've had a look at your entries on Hungarian performers in your allmusic guide. If you truly mean ALL music, then you're seriously deficient on the classical side. Unless I'm totally computer illiterate, I couldn't find Andras Schiff, Zoltan Kocsis, Tamas Vasary, or Eva Marton - just to name a few. I regret to inform you that the Allmusic Guide is hardly a competent reference on Hungarian music or musicians. (JP)
    - I've noticed deficiencies in allmusic as well, particularly in foreign musicians. "Allmusic" is a bit of a misnomer. I don't know much about the site, or what they purport to have, but they are about as good a guide as anything out there, as of yet. However, they do have Schiff [30], Kocsis [31], Vasary [32], and Marton [33]. Not to accuse you of being "computer illiterate", but you must have done something wrong. It happens. -R. fiend 15:28, 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 06:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The determinist teaching[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic content. Reads like a how-to for... getting numerical meaning out of words? The Bible Code? I honestly don't know. Peruvianllama 21:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone knows what this is, and can explain it to me, I'd be happy to change my vote and instead slap a 'cleanup' or similar tag on this article. Peruvianllama 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peruvianllama. KillerChihuahua 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense (unencyclopedic, not patent), and context-free OR. MCB 07:03, 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 07:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Eligible_Bachelors[edit]

Absolutely no responses to this whatsoever, so I'm relisting here to try to get at least one opinion. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page of non-notable band Harvestdancer 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of complying with WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Capitalistroadster. Another non-notable band... --W.marsh 01:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band, no AMG entry, web site has no Alexa rank. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; NN, no WP:MUSIC criteria met. Sneak-attack hoedown, indeed. - Sensor 01:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Andrew. -- WB 03:43, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time hiding[edit]

Stunts cruft. Little to no real context of this article. At best it should be merged with the Stunts page, at worse it should be straight up deleted. Malo 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing NPOV/verifiable to merge here — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Apyule 06:05, 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 Speedied Wikibofh 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Taylor[edit]

Delete Blatant insults and childishness. Mylakovich 11:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I think this meets one of the speedy deletion criteria (A6). I tagged it as such. --JoanneB 12:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 System Shock. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trioptimum Corporation[edit]

Non Notable. System Shock and System Shock 2 are among my favourite games, but there is not very much you can really write about Trioptimum. DooM Drat 07:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. - DooM Drat 07:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with System Shock and leave a redirect. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Angr. Dlyons493 Talk 10:42, 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.

Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 00:59, 20 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 Speedy Delete. --Doc (?) 08:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Halo[edit]

The author asks, " Who – or what – is Twisted Halo?" The answer is, "bandcruft" RoySmith 02:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put this on WP:SD. It was a copyvio, though they tried to be cute by changing the sentence structure slightly. --BorgHunter (talk) 02:54, 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, but in retrospect, did seem to fit CSD A7, no assertion of notability. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Dragon Man[edit]

Mmmm, crufty vanity. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Walter Siegmund 05:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Qaz is the name I have used since forever but I don't get an article cuz of it. (do I? *hopeful grin*) Qaz ^(talk) 05:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Ultimate Vanity Policy^TM. Peruvianllama 06:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all what I was expecting. Delete as vanity. DS 13:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Vanity pure and simple, with no worthwhile content. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as per Filiocht. Everyone knows Trogdor is the ultimate anyway. the wub "?!" 20:16, 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 and give to those crazy uncyclopedia people. --Phroziac^(talk) 18:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Cheese Theory[edit]

Nonsense. Unencyclopedic. Google brings up very few matches for this term, none of them significant. David Edgar 11:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn OR. Dlyons493 Talk 12:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I got 1 google hit when excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Only one person has edited the article. Punkmorten 20:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How sad - the potential for a great joke article and it falls flat on its face. Denni ☯ 04:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. MCB 06:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More BJAODN. The only unique google I found seems to be a blog by MrSun. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:18, 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. --18:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

United Federation Foundation[edit]

del. no traces of notability. mikka (t) 06:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, when I searched aroudn to fix this I found like 49 hits related to SETI. Unless convincing evidence it should go. gren グレン 06:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. --Apyule 08:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some evidence of notability can be provided. — Ливай 08:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense combined with vanity article. Searches on Google revealed lots of hits for this person/group bugging SETI@Home and similar distributed-computing projects with spam and glurge on their bulletin boards. Game over! - Sensor 00:51, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vgrp[edit]

Non-notable bb. --fvw * 19:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a worry when most bulletin board articles, particularly extinct ones, run on the same basic wording. This one doesn't really establish itself, and really, having reread the article, I realize my lack of knowledge of the subject doesn't aid the article's comprehension. Delete. Bobo192 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Delete unverifiable. --Apyule 06:40, 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. Wikiacc (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual camera[edit]

Does not merit its own article. It gives some basic info about the special effects in The Matrix, and that's about it. This article should be deleted and its content merged into The Matrix. --218.212.97.17 15:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though cleanup is needed. Virtual camera is an established term in cinema[34]. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response[edit]

Keep (and not just because it's mine)

The examples I used in the article were used because they were easy examples to show of the camera being used in this way, without having to go into great reams of detail about the objects used in the shots, as these were already described on the matrix pages. I could have given an example of an advertisement done by centerparcs before the matrix had even been conceptually created, but no one would have understood fully what I was talking about.

In addition, the other information given on how the Virtual camera is used in computer animated movies and computer games is still relevant, but not to the matrix, perhaps they could use more elaboration as opposed to just deleting the article?

Also; which reason in the reasons for deletions table is this? --Phil 17:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- It isn't one. "Does not merit its own article" is a reason to "merge and redirect" and not to bring things here. Kappa 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting article, the part about filming the Matrix is of interest outside the context of the film. Virtual cameras in video games are also a highly notable topic. Kappa 20:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I know, The Matrix was a 'first' in many special effects techniques, so I'd say keep, and lengthen with examples on how the use of virtual camera has been further developed by others. bjelleklang 22:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. valid topic. mikka (t) 23:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as notable topic warranting an article. BTW, this is another nomination by an anonymous user. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has the potential to be a very interesting article. It needs some expansion and a little copyediting, but is well worth keeping. Denni ☯ 04:55, 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.

Web band[edit]

Not notable, advertising, not verifiable, or full of inherent POV. Delete. Natalinasmpf 07:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just not encyclopedic. feydey 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonnotable neologism yet. mikka (t) 23:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by anonymous users[edit]

Please note that votes by anonymous users are not counted in the deletion process. And please, don't go out and make an account just to vote - those aren't counted as well. You need to be here for a while before your vote carries any weighting. --216.191.200.1 17:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, You know what else you should delete? (preceding unsigned comment by 24.188.27.159 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 12 October 2005)
Delete, "Sex" Article. It lacks pictures. Legendary_Jarl [HG] (preceding unsigned comment by 201.143.72.113 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 13 October 2005)
Delete, I need viagra (preceding unsigned comment by 71.131.103.6 (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 October 2005)
Keep I like it. -- Von (preceding unsigned comment by 209.153.41.50 (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 October 2005)
Keep Why not just call it a stub? Someone will be along to expand it sooner or later. Clarissimus (preceding unsigned comment by 143.44.76.194 (talk · contribs) 06:15, 13 October 2005)

Delete Why did no one take my proposal to delete DEEZ NUTZ seriously?- Russki

I don't know, JARL IS AN UBEREMO - KoE (preceding unsigned comment by 81.154.158.44 (talk · contribs) 15:47, 13 October 2005)

who cares? :(

Keep We're going to keep it, right? Right?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggle charges[edit]

A totally unused neologism. Delete. — Laura Scudder | Talk 21:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Apyule 06:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism or phrase otherwise not in wide use. MCB 07:01, 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 01:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and neural ensembles[edit]

Well intentioned maybe, but clearly original research. gren グレン 22:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. OR. feydey 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing original in this article. It only explains findings of neuroscientists who showed that large number of 'noisy' contributors can produce good information. Wikipedia uses the same principle. Many of the Neuroscience results are from the 1980s, and the principle of Wikipedia is common knowledge. References are provided. You are welcome to revise the article to make it sound less 'original'. (Unsigned by 24.163.65.156)

Comment. The article is about brain research with references to that. No references to sources like: Researchers have concluded that WP works like neural ensembles. Words like: appears to, common knowledge are not convincing, expressed by gren: Well intentioned maybe, but clearly original research. Original research is very hard to rewrite, since it contains assumptions and no/very little/very new research. Still the article is well written, so consider moving the appropriate parts to other articles. feydey 23:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOR, clearly a novel interpretation, sorry. I'd like to see it in the wikipedia namespace or as a user page. Kappa 00:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MOVED UPON CONSENSUS I've moved this text to neural ensemble and deleted most of the comparisons to Wikipedia (which are obvious, not original at all) except one.
- No vote, but I don't really see evidence of a consensus of any kind here. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - By 'consensus'I meant the desire expressed by several experts not to have this article linked directly to Wikipedia.
Delete as original research. -- Kjkolb 15:16, 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 Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William Corbett[edit]

Probably a hoax article; the combo of this author and title turns up no hits on Google, EBSOHost/Academic Search Premier, or Amazon.com. There is a William Corbett who's a contemporary poet and essayist, but this ain't him. It's also worth noting that this IP address was reprimanded for vandalism about two weeks ago. Delete unless convincing reference is provided. Dvyost 18:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. chowells 19:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Unverifiable from here. Dlyons493 Talk 21:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment or delete content and replace with content on poet/essayist, if he's at all noteable. KillerChihuahua 00:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dyvost, are you talking about the Writer in Residence at MIT? That guy is noteable. Replace this cruft/hoax stuff with him. KillerChihuahua 01:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one, but I'm afraid I don't have time to research him myself this week. Best to just delete for now, unless anyone else wants to take a shot. --Dvyost 20:48, 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 Speedy Delete. --Doc (?) 08:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.PolskaVodka.com[edit]

del. A cut from this page about vodka. Nothing to be merged into Vodka. mikka (t) 04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyvio, and otherwise no useful content. Peruvianllama 06:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Apyule 08:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear A8 --Doc (?) 08:17, 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.