Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 1 October 3 >

Purge server cache

October 2[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 no consensus. But since the split was between merging and deleting, I'll do a redirect myself to Final Fantasy SGI demo. If anyone wants to merge content there, feel free to go through the history and do so. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy N64[edit]

Badly written, and no pages get here. Maybe move content to FFVI page.(the website in the page, I´ve already seen something about it...[1]) igordebraga ≠ 00:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (oh, I just found out:ALREADY EXISTS!)[reply]

  • Keep! Here are my reasons.
    • It is a pre-release stub for a new game, where the other games in the series have articles. E.g. final fantasyFinal Fantasy VII etc. etc. & etc. We should allow this article to develop.
    • The VfD was added a less than 20 hours after the article was started. The article was started on 05:22, 1 October 2005.
    • It is easy for the non-gamers to dismiss all these games. I mean, people just spend hours on them instead of doing something constructive like browsing E-bay or www.woot.com.
      • We need to welcome these young people and not view their musings as less important than Iressa or GIST. These young slackers are our future. They are the future of Wikipedia. One day, when our arthritic fingers fail to connect with the correct key on the keyboard, when our eyesights collectively fail and our brains turn to mush, gamers with access to pre-released games, young ones like User:FlareNUKE will continue to post. Word after word. Article after article. Wikipedia will be saved by the teenie bopper gamers.

Joaquin Murietta 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't think it's a pre-release; but rather, a game that was once to be released, but was not [2]. HollyAm 00:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs certainly work and linkage, but so do most articles when they start out. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unreleased or not, it's still a game ( Sonic X-treme ) --FlareNUKE 07:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to merge with the demo thing, sorry, didn't know it existed :( --FlareNUKE 07:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It'll still probably come out long before Duke Nukem Forever. --Merovingian (t) (c) 01:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 02:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete It never been released and never will be that now that N64 dont make games no more. Maybe merge the content to Final Fantasy beacuse this dont deserve an article on its own --JAranda | yeah 02:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about all the other games consoles out there? Granted, a redirect may be needed in the future, but the Final Fantasy line continues. Sonic Mew | talk to me 04:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Final Fantasy VII. However, there is also compelling evidence for a delete: "Final Fantasy N64 SGI Demo" gets only 23 hits on Google, and three big VG websites have the exact same writeup about it. -- Grev -- Talk 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I remember this demo. It shows Locke and the rest of the Final Fantasy VI people in 3D. I don't see how you can write an article about just a demo/speculation. --J. Nguyen 15:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:J. Nguyen. -Nameneko 18:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Games that were never released are not notable. This information could best be merged into one sentence on the main Final Fantasy article, as "A Final Fantasy game for the N64 was planned by Squaresoft, but was soon abandoned after Squaresoft decided to join Sony and work on Final Fantasy VII." --Revolución (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Revolución and Grev. And by the by, the people that write fancruft could start saving WP now if they'd just stop. The chances of them being WP's saviors is about as likely as Willy on Wheels being Jimbo's work buddy. Bollocks to teeny bopper gamers. Up with RickK and his ilk. --Blackcap | talk 22:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. Conjectural and uncertain. If it is "a game that was once to be released, but was not" then Aboslutely delete. That it was nominated in 20 minutes is not a fault. We should be careful at the door. Marskell 00:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Rogerd 05:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as above (with merge as preference) -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - This either needs to be deleted or redirected to Final Fantasy VII or better yet Final Fantasy SGI demo. ~ Hibana 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The entire thing is a poorly researched bastardization of content already present at Final Fantasy SGI demo: not only does it duplicate information present in the aforementioned article, but it presents fannish speculation as fact. To wit, it is a technical demo, not a "game that was once to be released, but was not," and was never tied to the Nintendo 64. The only connection it had to that console is that the SGI workstations used to produce it had some technical similarities to the N64 hardware. Any statement beyond that, particularly without references to support it, is speculation. – Seancdaug 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It is an interesting article about an unreleased game. Carioca 22:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to merge with Final Fantasy SGI demo. It's... Thelb4! 06:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep the content and move it to FFVII or FFVI, or better yet, both. Maybe a mention on the Final Fantasy overview page as well. It doesn't need it's own page by any stretch of the imagination. Coyote-37 10:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to merge with Final Fantasy SGI demo. --Merovingian (t) (c) 07:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Final Fantasy VII There is nothing here that needs its own article. Amren (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Final Fantasy SGI demo both articles are about the same topic. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Final Fantasy SGI demo. -- ReyBrujo 01:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quintalis[edit]

Okay, this took some Googling around to figure out what the hell is being talked about. It's Puzzle Pirates cruft, is what it is. DS 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Wassili I[edit]

Too stupid. Should be speedy deleted, IMHO! -guety is talking english bad 00:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The translation tag gives two weeks to translate, and was placed on the article today. Chick Bowen 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have read it? It's nonsens about a self declared Kaiser. -guety is talking english bad 01:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I just muddled my way through it--I had voted based solely on the tag. Guety's right, it's nonsense. Change vote to Delete. Chick Bowen 01:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't speak German, luckily the Google toolbar does. Having read it, I concur. Sounds like someone's fictional dream. Change vote to delete. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A quick browse suggests this could be speedied as patent nonsense, even. Choess 01:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense. --Merovingian (t) (c) 01:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, it's not patent nonsense in the usual meaning of the phrase. It tells a coherent story, but it's a complete fabrication. "Delusional vanity" is not a speedy criterion. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, but someone else didn't, since it's gone now. Maybe "delusional vanity" combined with "written in German" might count as CSD. . . Chick Bowen 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interior design 1950's[edit]

This article is original research. I put a cleanup tag on it a while ago because I thought something could be salvaged from it, but the more I look at it the more I can't find anything to merge anywhere, since everything here is advancing the argument of what is, in fact, an essay. Chick Bowen 01:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have graded the essay. It gets an F. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the current version and location looks unacceptable, I think there could be a good article about interior design trends in 1950s America (and other countries). Maybe I just say this because I'm renovating a house with some wacky 1950s-era design choices under the carpet/wallpaper! But interior design, very different every 10 years or so, is a notable part of culture. --W.marsh 01:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, I'd support a History of interior design or some such. But individual decades probably don't merit an article. Chick Bowen 02:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you will find that individual decades of the 20th century probably do merit an article. For that matter, though there are fewer people capable of contributing, it is possible to go decade by decade back into the 19th century. 18th century, the span between major changes it a bit larger. Heck, changes in fasion for interior decoration goes back to the ancient Egyptians and earlier. I encourage W.marsh to start a better article on 50's interior design. Crypticfirefly 16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Merovingian (t) (c) 01:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no substance, could qualify as original research if the article had original research in it. My chief question is, are there such pages for other decades, and if so, what are the formats used. In any event, this is a very weak entry. Stu 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Stu, this is the only one. Chick Bowen 18:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (page was blanked by author). Robert 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Selling Approaches[edit]

Reads like original research, or a seminar handout of some sort. ArmadniGeneral 01:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. On the otherhand, if you ever worked in a sales job (Mary Kay, Knives, Jewelry) this is part of their mantra...Roodog2k (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikibooks. It is possible that someone on Wikibooks might want it.
  • Transwiki, unless it can be proven that this is a specific company memo or somesuch, in which case it would be a copyvio. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Clear case of delete. DS 18:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everythingrock.com[edit]

Wikipedia is not a links collection. NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 main list and sublists. Robert 23:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Railway_Stations_in_Japan[edit]

Old, incomplete list sorted by non-English order. Not used anywhere, and category is better Neier 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are 21 related sub-pages listed in this Afd entry. Rather than clutter the main Afd page with more entries, I think it is ok to list them like that because there is no reason to delete only a portion of these pages. They all form a miniature ecosystem which nothing seems to be using or updating. If they need to be busted out and listed one at a time on the Afd page, then I can do that. Neier 01:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Category:Railway_stations_of_Japan should be used instead - Neier 00:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this. --MacRusgail 13:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you second User:Neier's opinion, please make a "delete" vote. -Nameneko 01:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete and create category as mentioned. --MacRusgail 13:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A new system similar to the ja.wikipedia's categories (sorted by regions and prefectures) should be created. -Nameneko 01:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This entire complex was apparently the personal project of ScottKuberski, who has been inactive since July 11, 2004 ([3]). It seems unlikely that anyone else will take up the project in this form. Chick Bowen 01:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category is better. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought it was established that lists and categories are both allowed for a given area. UK railway stations and Category:British railway stations both exist so these articles have a right to exist. -- RHaworth 08:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason this is being listed for deletion is because it's 1) in a non-English order and 2) is a personal project of an inactive Wikipedian. It isn't so much a matter of whether the category deserves a list or not, but a matter how poorly that list is written. If/When this is deleted, I'm sure it will be fine to completely redo the lists in a format that makes sense, if anyone it up to it. -Nameneko 18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we move this whole complex to the Wikipedia namespace somewhere to keep the structure, links etc.? Although some have few or no entries, some have lots. It would be useful to have a list of names of stations (red links) for expansion. But it does little good as an article as it is (with nobody working on it). Fg2 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two lists of the 21 which may be nearly complete: SA and A. I think those two lists of station names is a nice resource, so moving them to another place for safekeeping is a good idea. But even then, I wouldn't want to consider them to be canonical (I haven't checked -- it seems pretty thorough, but that just means that the gaps will be harder to spot). I've started an unofficial project to build a set of templates for each railway line, similar to the prefecture or state templates (the templates list each station on a specific line, similar to listing each city of a state, etc). Category:Templates_for_Railway_Lines_of_Japan As that moves forward, then that may be another place to collect red links, and in a localized manner at that. It is still in its infancy, but help in filling in other lines is definitely welcome.Neier 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took the Japanese lists from ja:日本の鉄道駅一覧 and played a bunch of perl games with them. The net result is that I have a list of romaji names for the ~9000 stations, along with (PREFECTURE) on most of the ones which need them. Until this current mess is cleaned up, I've stuck them in my User:Neier/Sandbox/TrainList. There is still some work to be done with the names on the list, such as bad romaji, and also several disambiguations that we need that the Japanese site didn't (like Izumi-Chuo Station) because the kanji is different, but the romaji is the same. Once there is a clean slate, I'll move the sandbox into a List of xyz structure (after wikifying the romaji names, red-links and all). Feel free to fix things in the sandbox until then. - Neier 12:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ample precedent for lists that are redundant with categories. Snowspinner 21:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nameneko's quite right--the reduncancy with the category is not the issue. The issue is that ScottKuberski only finished the list for A, and nobody's going to finish the rest because the people who care would prefer to organize such a list geographically rather than by Japanese spelling, as it is organized here. Chick Bowen 02:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right. I suppose the "category is better" at the end of my afd entry is ill-placed.Neier 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incomplete (actually barely started) list, abandoned and unmaintained. Quale 08:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but without prejudice for another list with a different structure. Lists of stations are valid if they present the information differently from what a category would. The problem as I see it is that this list tries to list the stations in alphabetical order, and without any descriptions on the page, it is very redundant with the category. A list which ordered the stations according to railway line or by geographical location (district/region/whatever) however, would be valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Clear delete vote. DS 18:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

149 Cars[edit]

A collection of unsourced, untagged, images with no text and no purpose. If the images are freely licensed, this page should go at the Commons:, but it doesn't seem likely that they are. Angela. 01:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the unsourced images are deleted, this article will be empty. Jkelly 01:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the nature of the photos, I very much doubt they are suitably licensed anyway. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or move to the more accurately titled 20 Cars. Pburka 02:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT an image gallery --JAranda | yeah 02:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Aranda. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Preaky 07:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV photo gallery - images, if available through fair-use could be assigned to the marque/model listing (ie move the mustang pictures to the Ford Mustang article).
  • Comment I am deleting the photos now. Zach (Sound Off) 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All photos were unsourced except for one, which was at the Commons. It would be safe to speedy this now. Zach (Sound Off) 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compass church[edit]

Non-notable church. Sounds like the entire text has been copied from somewhere else. BorgQueen 01:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: article listed as copyvio. No longer AfD's jurisdiction. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so time isn't wasted trying to get permission or verifying that it is actually a copyvio. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Outcome of the vote was gressle delete. DS 18:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gressled[edit]

Hoax and/or neologism. The history shows that the "origin" of the word has changed since the article was first written, which makes me doubt its veracity. Joyous (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETED as copyvio. Robert 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Swim Club[edit]

The information in this article does not seem verifiable. Lupin|talk|popups 01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note at least part of it is copyright infringement from this site [5]. What's the protocol here, should I remove the AfD tag and replace it with the copyvio tag? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socially Indifferent[edit]

Seems like the article goes around in circles without saying anything about Social indifference --Mysidia (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Transwiki to WikiMedia - perhaps the author is trying to demonstrate this concept in his/her article. Brisvegas 11:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: dicdef, with self-explanatory title. Also they need to learn how to use capitals... --MacRusgail 14:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to apathy. --Revolución (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Apathy (which is where indifference redirects). Angela. 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, restatement of the title plus personal essay. I don't see the need for a redirect, there's lots of foo indifference redirects that could be made but since the apathy article has nothing specific to say about them I think people who type it into the search box and hit go are better off getting the search results. --fvw* 11:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Fvw. DES (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeouch[edit]

  • del. Nonnotable websipe. A small blip on google radar. mikka (t) 02:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- From the article: YeeOuch.com achieved recognition by the UWA guild, and is now the official system for obtaining books via an online source.: I think this is notable, because not many universities are providing an official system: While this may be merely a blip on the Google radar; this is a little more important than the other billions of sites in the world where there's nothing to merit an article in an encyclopedia. --Mysidia (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes you think that UWA guild is notable so that its recognition is important? mikka (t) 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. UWA is notable, but the UWA guild falls below notability. Being noted by a non-notable is non-notable. That leaves the article with no claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 16:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --fvw* 11:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild delete No indication of notability in article or previous comments here. Evidence of the actual significance of the UWA guild recognition, or of the degree to whifh this is actually used by students in Western Australia could caus eme to change my view. DES (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. If someone wants to recreate them as redirects, then feel free to do so. Robert 23:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asseenontv.com, AsSeenOnTV.com[edit]

Advertisemnt and copyvio ≈ jossi ≈ 02:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Hermione1980 19:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre L. J. Vincent[edit]

Non-notable, fails pokemon test. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This page was deleted for some unknown reason, and was recreated by Spinboy. I've restored it to its undeleted version. --Blackcap | talk 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER NOTE: The admin responsible was Snowspinner. Please see WP:ANI#Large scale AfD unlisting for details. --Blackcap | talk 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He seems notable to me, and what's more important, is fully verified. He's the co-founder of a semi-large Canadian republican organization. I'm curious as to what the pokemon test is, though. --Blackcap | talk 06:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Semi large? It's not that large. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not Canadian, nor do I follow Canadian politics much, but within the republican movement it seems reasonably large/notable, at least enough to warrant inclusion. And what's the pokemon test? --Blackcap | talk 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the claims made in the article are true it's a definite keep. If there are reasons to think his organisation isn't a major Canadian republican body, then please let us know them. The Land 11:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I guess you could categorise them as a major Canadian republican body, in that they seem to be prominent within the very small Canadian republican movement. They do get some google news hits. Pburka 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me that the legal fight mentioned in the article, due to his being fired from his government job for refusal to take the oath of alligience would make him notable even without the political organization angle. Crypticfirefly 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't like the Pokémon test, I am not sure I would agree that this doesn't pass it. gren グレン 20:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the hell is the Pokemon test? --Blackcap | talk 21:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The pokemon test is simple. You ask youself 'Is this more or less important than an article on a pokemon character or episode'? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah. Got it. --Blackcap | talk 22:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe this test is highly controversial as many believe that pokemon characters or episodes simply don't belong on Wikipedia, and it is very simplistic, many use it to argue in favour of keeping an article, since the vast majory of stuff on AfD would pass. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Crypticfirefly. -- Corvus 19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Crypticfirefly Being the plaintif and key figure in a major legal test is IMO notabel without more, so how large his orgization is is moot for that purpose -- although it would be nice if sources were cited about the orginaztion and its size and influence. DES (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (4 keep, 1 delete, 2 merge). Robert 23:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freda[edit]

Non-notable. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This page was deleted for some unknown reason, and was recreated by Spinboy. I've restored it to its original undeleted version. --Blackcap | talk 22:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER NOTE: The admin responsible was Snowspinner. Please see WP:ANI#Large scale AfD unlisting for details. --Blackcap | talk 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As above. Depends whether the organisation is notable or not. If it is, these two need to be kept. The Land 11:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, despite its name, has only ten voting members so I suspect the CCR is actually "bigger" if not as well funded. Homey 01:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I guess you could categorise them as a major Canadian republican body, in that they seem to be prominent within the very small Canadian republican movement. They do get some google news hits. Pburka 16:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mmmmm... good point. However, if the organization is considered significant, he may warrant his own article. Depends: m:eventualism vs. m:mergism. I think I'll stick to my original vote for now, though. --Blackcap | talk 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merege as per User:Corvus. Seems to have no sepeerate notability -- at least none is asserted in the articel as it stands. DES (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's regularly interviewed by radio and tv and quoted in newspapers, particularly when there's a royal visit as well as on or around Victoria Day for the past few years. If John Aimers (of whom it can be said has no notability outside of the Monarchist League of Canada) merits an article, so does Freda. Homey 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's a co-founder of Canada's first republican movement (an achievement in its own right), their main anglo spokesperson, and as Homey just mentioned, he regularly speaks on behalf of organized Canadian republicans in the media. And again, if the head of their monarchist counterpart deserves a page, so should the head of the republicans. As far as the significance of the organization is concerned, they recently formed a strategic alliance with the republican movements of Austrailia, NZ and UK. So not only are they recognized in Canada as the voice of Canadian republicans, but also internationally. I think it's obvious what's happening here. The attempts to delete this page are coming from monarchists who will do anything to sabotage the republican movement. I hope admin will see through these attepmts for what they are - vandalism. MC Rufus 01:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the vote wasn't forged. My roommate forgot to log out and I had assumed I still was. My apologies MC Rufus 11:02, 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. -Doc (?) 23:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes a phone number[edit]

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs.

Utterly trivial list.

  • Speedy delete as phonecruft with no potential of passing the stub line. --SuperDude 02:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly not a Speedy this List of Songs Cruft is getting dumber and dumber whats next List of songs that does not exist or List of songs that put people to sleep --JAranda | yeah 03:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter list would be very long —Wahoofive (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a reductio ad absurdum that is flawed because it is based upon a false analogy. A list of songs that put people to sleep has a problem of being an original research magnet, in that it tempts people to add songs to the list that put xem xemselves to sleep. This article does not have such a problem. There are no subjective criteria inherent in whether or not a song title contains a telephone number. Uncle G 12:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beechwood-four-five-seven-eight-nine...you can go ahead and just delete any ol' time. --FuriousFreddy 03:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invaluable. Where else would I find a list of songs with phone numbers in their title, were I to have a need to research this subject, but Wikipedia? --Centauri 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you need to research such a thing to begin with? - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did research such a thing two years ago when I did a paper on communication systems in pop culture. If only this had existed then... --Jacquelyn Marie 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic. Xoloz 09:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe, if someone was really bored, they could create a category for this. The Land 09:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't have lists for everything. Punkmorten 12:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list's selection criteria are neither excessively narrow nor excessively broad. The list does not contain an inherent bias, and is not by its nature an original research magnet as some other lists are. Yes, this is slanted towards people who come to Wikipedia looking for answers to trivia quiz questions. But so are the thirty-five articles listed at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. And it is conceivable that a person who knew of one song whose title includes a telephone number would want to know whether there were others. Keep. Uncle G 12:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't like the way the list is done but I could imagine being bored enough on a cold and wet day to think "hmm.. which other songs have telephone numbers in". I don't know that that makes it a good article. Maybe I just need more of a life? Marcus22 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it wouldn't have been created and maintained if it wasn't of interest. - SimonP 13:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivia, not encyclopedic. There is no connection in these songs apart from the use of phone numbers. A list of songs that were performed at the roriginal Live Aid concert, or have won Academy Awards is notable. This isn't. Average Earthman 14:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Pburka 15:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. Crypticfirefly 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G -- but I would like a clean up. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Centauri -- although... maybe not invaluable. Where else but wikipedia could you find someone who has put together such a list for you? even if most people will laugh. gren グレン 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quale 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. --Apyule 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please jacquelyn marie really makes a strong reason for including this list here so please do not erase this Yuckfoo 19:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uncle G. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:38:00 Z
  • Keep, not necessarily on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was all set to vote delete and then Jacquelyn Marie comes along with an excellent rationale to hang onto this. Denni☯ 01:57, 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 Clear consensus to delete. DS 18:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Math[edit]

NN "academically themed music group".

  • Delete Fawcett5 02:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Possibly patent nonsense. --SuperDude 02:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be nonsense. --Interiot 03:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wholly fails WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 06:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.219.200 (talk • contribs) .
  • Please note the above anon blanked other people's votes. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's nonsense, but just a case of more hopes than reality. It's non-notable at this time. When they cut a disc under an established label, they can get an article then. But I won't hold my breath; note that the band members are currently "parted". --A D Monroe III 16:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Blackcap. --Apyule 05:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Blackcap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 08:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources to verify this with. Angela. 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MUSIC. --fvw* 11:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC, therefore non-notable. DES (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

{{subst:void|1=This template must be substituted. Replace {{afd2 with {{subst:afd2.}}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Doc (?) 23:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes personal names[edit]

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs.

Subtrivial listcruft.

  • Delete. Unmaintainable list. --SuperDude 02:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an unmaintainable list And Many subtitles to this link to make sure and not as dumb of a list as the one a few articles up --JAranda | yeah 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is the kind of thing people are always looking for when they need to make a mix tape. -- BD2412 talk 03:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep interesting and already-well-maintained list. — brighterorange (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid list. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Valid and useful information.--Centauri 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable. --MacRusgail 13:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it wouldn't have been created and maintained if it wasn't of interest. - SimonP 13:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • N.B.:When I said "unmaintainable", I meant that there are too many songs with personal names in them. The list could go on forever. --MacRusgail 14:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not agree that this is unmaintainable. At worst, if it got too large, it could be subdivided into separate pages on specific names. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per BD2412. Jkelly 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it could get huge, but... I don't think it should be deleted. Some use to some people and harmless. gren グレン 21:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as yet more preposterous, unmaintainable listcruft. I'm awaiting the inevitable lists of songs including flavors, colors, days of the week, cities, countries, moods, types of belly-button lint, and pokemons. Apparently this seems to appeal to some editors, but I agree that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MCB 23:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 100th 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 no consensus (1 delete, 2 keep, 3 merge}. Robert 23:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus Camp[edit]

Delete. It don't make no sense to me. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It is another Boy Scout article about a camp. Merge them all into Philmont Scout Ranch under the List of Trail Camps section Joaquin Murietta 10:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment probably needs someone to update that article to remove all of the red links that are behind these articles. Vegaswikian 06:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeNonsense, and it is just taking up space. Stu 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some editing to the entry, but it continues to lack in many ways. I continue to think that it needs to either be merged into a larger article, or deleted. Stu 22:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly not nonsense, and space is completely a non-issue; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Cabins Camp for further reasoning. — Dan | Talk 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Joaquin - as all the others should be, too (and that seems to be where their vote is heading). Grutness...wha? 02:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. I tried merging them into a Camps of Philmont article but if quality information is added to each subheading, that article will be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles.--L1AM 10:25, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 20:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come Baby Come[edit]

Stub for a song by an artist without an aritcle of their own. Notablility not established. FuriousFreddy 03:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The song is notable (I can hum it)- I think it's a a UK one-hit wonder. Online shop with some more info on it The Land 11:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would it not be best to make an article for the artist, and mention the song there? --FuriousFreddy 13:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If it's a one-hit wonder, I think it would be much more likely that users would search for this term instead. However, an additional redirect at the singer/band name may be appropriate, or perhaps the other way around (redirect from this search term to author page). --Jacquelyn Marie 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whie it would seem better to do it the other way around (article on artists with song title as redirect), that isn't a bad suggestion, so long as someone expands the article to establish notability. --FuriousFreddy 17:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Notable song and there's plenty of precedent for notable songs to have their own articles. 23skidoo 14:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Song is notable, more notable than artist. So what? Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's one of the worst songs I've heard, but keep. Punkmorten 21:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to "K7". --fvw* 11:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please the song is famous why should we erase an article about it that would not make sense to me Yuckfoo 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per other reasons to keep. --SuperDude 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to "K7". If this guy is big enough to have a page of his own, then 'maybe' his song gets a page. As of now...non-notable.--Daniel Lotspeich 02:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically contentless article that doesn't seem to meet any of my personal criteria for what constitutes an encyclopedic song. -R. fiend 18:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. -Doc (?) 23:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Reunion[edit]

This article starts with Project Reunion is the code name for the experiment being put together by Ish and Ceeraya, Saffi and Needa Sunzu, The Code, Apeh, Rothon, and Ojec. In essence, it is a social and political experiment to see if we have what it takes to start, run, and manage a company. Then it seems to turn into some sort of story about wood elves. I'm not sure exactly what this is, but I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia. Joyous (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The afd slug was deleted by User:Admiralq who also wrote the original page, so I put it back. Neier 06:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom. I think it may be scenario within the (unreleased) game which it links to at the bottom, but it doesn't seem like it belongs in a separate entry, no matter what. The history shows it was also registered for speedy, and the speedy deletion was also deleted by the page creator. Neier 06:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (italics appended) Neier 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been trying to discuss the issue with the author of the article on the talk page. From what I've managed to understand, it's some kind of an experiment with their characters in a MMORPG game. Denis Kasak 08:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. Xoloz 09:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ineltro company[edit]

I can't find evidence that this fashion judging company exists on Google. -- Kjkolb 03:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The very few hits I see are in German - unlikely for a supposedly UK company. Dlyons493 Talk 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. --Apyule 05:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Hermione1980 19:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Band camp[edit]

A summer camp for band students. Are we going to have a separate article for every kind of camp? Soccer camp? Baseball camp? Every summer camp has some kind of theme, but they don't all need separate articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, delete. The Land 11:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with summer camp. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this can't be elegantly merged into summer camp without writing more elaborate descriptions for the other types of specialty "camps." Also, I believe that band camp (which is required by many schools in order to participate in band) is significantly different from other types of "summer camp" in overall concept. Crypticfirefly 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because band camps are often sponsored by schools and are also often compulsory if you want to stay in the band -- nothing like how one gets into a standard summer camp, in my opinion. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If we do get lots of articles such as soccer camp and baseball camp, a page about compulsory camps could be created and the information could be merged -- but we'd still need redirects, because "band camp" and "soccer camp," etc, would be used much more often for searching than "compulsory camps". --Jacquelyn Marie 16:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If computer camp is going to stay as its own entry, then band camp should as well. Band camp outranks comptuer camp 5 to 1 for Google hits. Otherwise I could see a merge for both. Band camp has its own significance as a subtheme in the movie American Pie (American Pie V will be called American Pie: Band Camp according to IMDB [6] ) and this could be added to the article Jessamyn 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One time, at band camp. Punkmorten 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and have the article not only explain what band camp is, but also mention the American Pie "One time, at band camp" phrase. Zach (Sound Off) 23:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not to mention that band camp in real life (at least for Indiana competitive bands) is much different than what it is presented as in that movie. Kurt Weber 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC), 5-year trombone player/2-year instructor of his high school band and, for a time, a member of Southwind Drum & Bugle Corps[reply]
  • Keep --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep American Pie promotes schoolyard stereotype to WP notability. Xoloz 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One time, at band camp... (the article needs some work though.) --Apyule 05:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jessamyn. Carioca 22:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jessamyn. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:45:51 Z
  • Keep, if for no other reason, then as part of the fight against Deletionist Vandalism Kurt Weber 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Scenes Productions[edit]

Non-notable production company that has only produced a few commercials. Limited results for (Berkeley "Behind the Scenes Productions") -- Kjkolb 04:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Appology[edit]

An album "probably to be released in 2006." Crystal-ball-cruft —Wahoofive (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wahoofive. Xoloz 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mmmmm... if Ice Cube exist and are being managed by Dr Dre then I'd be tempted to say keep on the basis that the band probably and the manager certainly are notable. The Land 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ice Cube definitely exists, he's a hugely succesful rap artist. "Ice Cube" + "Gangsta Apology" gets 0 Google hits, though, so this is, um, speculation, at best. Jkelly 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable album speculation. Jkelly 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — speculation (and is an album managed?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Article "probably to be deleted in 2005". MCB 23:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any evidence of this, and with the people involved a rumour would be floating about. It seems to be a hoax. --Apyule 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers TV Crew[edit]

High school television network -- Kjkolb 04:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus(See Tally on Talk Page) Karmafist 05:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All theme song lists[edit]

What utterly subtrival listcruft

  • Speedy delete as usless trivia since this could list just about every TV show ever made. Not to mention potentially unmaintainable. --SuperDude 04:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look at the article, SuperDude? It's a list of lists. Badly named, and totally useless, but not likely to spin out of control. Delete; could be a category if it matters —Wahoofive (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Theme song. The subject matter's small enough to go right in the main article. -- -- Bobdoe (Talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Bobdoe. Theme song is the best place to mention them. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to theme music ('theme song' redirects there). Flowerparty■ 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page and create category per Wahoofive. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect FireSpike 20:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable. Don't categorise: it would mean that nearly every programme would be in one of these categories (theme music either has lyrics, or it doesn't). Merging would make the parent article look messy -- and huge! (Merge, of course, the relevant information into the individual programme articles). The JPS 10:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless lists. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--I found the list of theme songs that mention the show in the lyrics interesting and useful. Trivia? Yes, but you can reduce all information to the level of trivia if it doesn't interest you. The other lists (instrumental themes and themes that DON'T mention the show in the lyrics) don't seem so essential to me, since, as other folks mention, it all becomes reductive after a while.--June

  • Delete this page and create category. Lists are a pain to maintain, categories maintain themselves. MH 18:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this page and create category making sure that theme song has a "see also" to it. Alf melmac 19:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythmic vocals[edit]

Neologism for the musical technique of a band not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article —Wahoofive (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable style. CambridgeBayWeather 05:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - description sounds unlikely, like some kind of sub-rapping. --MacRusgail 13:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Rich Farmbrough 23:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic negotiations[edit]

Appears to be a neologism and an ad for a book called, surprisingly, "Strategic Negotiations". -- Kjkolb 04:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Doc (?) 23:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizer programmer[edit]

Software-cruft —Wahoofive (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as nonsense. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Reliability[edit]

Joke of some sort, has a confusing, borderline nonsense earlier edit but now is just attracting vandals W.marsh 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this should have been speedy as nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather 04:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what the hell goons Liface 06:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Nonsense. ♠DanMS 06:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Cnwb 06:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Hermione1980 19:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sludge metal[edit]

Another imaginary music genre. What is it about metal fans that they all think they have to invent new style names every five minutes? As usual, none of the bands listed are described using this term on their own article pages. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually this is a genre I've heard of and I'm pretty sure is notable (even if the music is as bad as the genre name suggests)... and AMG has too, lists bands as sludge metal and has a page for the genre. See Crowbar and Down for two sludge metal bands. Both have articles on WP: Crowbar (U.S. band) and Down (band). Article could use some work but isn't terrible. --W.marsh 05:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although I'm not sure about The Melvins. Grunge, punk or sludge metal? --MacRusgail 13:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This genre wasn't just invented 5 minutes ago, it's been around since at least the early '90s. Also, if you've listened to the ones that just say "heavy metal", it's pretty obvious they're not actually the original heavy metal. - Dysfunktion 16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per W.marsh. KeithD (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per W.marsh Jessamyn 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sludge metal is a significant and relatively oft-referred to genre, although it is somewhat "narrow" compared to other metal genres. This article should definitely be kept. Night 07:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aussies_For_Life[edit]

Not a 'widely used' phrase - not worthy of an entry pfctdayelise 05:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nomination. - pfctdayelise 05:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm an Australian, and I've never heard the expression. Cnwb 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cnwb -- Chuq 06:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cnwb. Speedy? --Scott Davis Talk 06:18, 2 October 2005
  • Delete as per Cnwb, but if someone can show some substancial references to the term, and expanding the article including these and a few notable mentions of the club, then it might be worth keeping. 220.253.12.86 08:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Ambi 09:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yawn...--Cyberjunkie | Talk 11:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--User:AYArktos | Talk 12:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete dittoSlimy earthworm 19:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. False. Snottygobble | Talk 02:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Already speedied by snowspinner. – Rich Farmbrough 20:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Network Modelling[edit]

Maybe it's a notable topic... One would never know from this article, whose only content is to plug one researcher, and a link -- which is broken. Alai 05:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't really pass the Google test - it seems to be a term peculiar to this one researcher and his group at UCL, and there doesn't seem to be anything to say about it that wouldn't be a copyvio. Keithlard 05:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if re-written. I've fixed the link. It's a reputable academic area about which quite a bit could be said. I get close to 600 Googles for [7] Dlyons493 Talk 12:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not worth to keep even as a stub. Somebody who's keen on this topic will write a new article about it eventually. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tea the Band[edit]

nn band, sold 1000 copies of their CD independently. No record label, apparently. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrio[edit]

Advert. Michael Slone 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Michael Slone 05:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like an ad - Neier 06:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, it has been tagged as a copyvio. Speedy. Zach (Sound Off) 00:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Rich Farmbrough 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bornscar[edit]

This band has only released a single. They have no All Music entry and very little on Google. -- Kjkolb 05:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep they made it on a major US chart. Which qualifies for WP:MUSIC. JobE6 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't realize that. Withdrawn. -- Kjkolb 05:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Jobe6. Cnwb 06:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified. I think the hit was a hoax. A quick google on "bornscar" shows 25 results, none of them apparently referring to a band. Friday (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, again, as per Friday. This may need to be relisted. -- Kjkolb 02:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Clear consensus to delete. DS 18:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble In Xerox[edit]

Does "fictional stories" mean they don't even really exist? The only Google link I could come up with for this is at http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/index.html, and all that is is a word match but not a meaning match. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Sandstein 10:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom as well. Gtabary 23:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moment of Youth[edit]

This band seems to have only produced demos and no albums. It has no All Music entry. It has some Google hits, but many are not relevant. -- Kjkolb 05:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Snowspinner, as it was a foreign article that already existed on the Hungarian Wiki. Robert 03:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ismert Űr[edit]

This page was attempting to be a Hungarian translation of Known Space, but the useful content has already been moved to the Hungarian site at hu:Ismert Űr, so this inappropriately located page can be deleted. Bovineone 06:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless vampire killers[edit]

unsigned, non notable band Qaz (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KDK[edit]

non notable Qaz (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If someone is noteable enough for someone to write an article about them with out the subject's knowlage, then it's worth keeping. Notable. User:masterstghm
  • Keep, There's nothing wrong with this entry. Also, What the heck is that supposed to mean? Tell me Qaz, What the heck do you mean by "non notable"? Pezboy (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He means that the subject isn't of encyclopedic interest, being "just" someone prank calling people. This article needs to establish that KDK is newsworthy or of historical interest, or somehow otherwise notable in an encyclopedic way or else this article will be deleted, as it's not practical to have articles about every single person on the planet.
      Just as a quick tip: you can sign your posts by adding ~~~~ to the end of your comment. If you want to have a username (I see User:Pezboy doesn't seem to be taken), just click the register link up in the righthand corner of the screen. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a good explanation of what I meant. Thank you for adding that, Man in Black. Qaz (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem newsworthy or otherwise notable. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per A Man In Black. -- Kjkolb 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Sandstein 10:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Correcting myself I seem to get a fair few relevant hits on google for KDK Prank Calls. How many are more than just directory listings I'm not sure Marcus22 13:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, if/when deleted, make sure to remove the link from List of prank call comedians and list Image:Kdk.jpg on IfD. -Nameneko 19:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gtabary 23:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn or vanity. --fvw* 11:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. There are claims of notability here, so not speedy delete, but I don't buy the article as establishign notability overall. DES (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 09:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. KDK is indeed well know among people who are familiar with prank callers. KDK's website is ranked #2 on Alexa under the category "Top > Recreation > Humor > Pranks > Prank Calls" and is ranked #241,034 out of all websites indexed on Alexa. SATAN 05:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (preceding comment by 12.76.48.67 (talk · contribs) 05:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per above delete arguments. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (5 merge, 3 keep, 2 delete). Robert 23:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Cabins Camp, Rich Cabins, Comanche Camp, Comanche Peak Camp, Tooth Ridge Camp[edit]

Non-notable, 11 Google hits for the first, unverified, unverifiable. --Blackcap | talk 06:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There's a slew of these nn camps spawning from Philmont Scout Ranch. I could only do so many, and now I'm heading off to bed. I'd love it if someone finished them off. --Blackcap | talk 06:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. -- Kjkolb 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all into Philmont Scout Ranch under the List of Trail Camps section Joaquin Murietta 10:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Philmont Scout Ranch. Maybe be not notable to you and me, likely very notable to BSA. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly verifiable; I own at least one book which catalogs each camp's history and culture. Many of these have historical significance (hideouts for outlaws; ancient artifacts found nearby; major mining disasters) which predate the BSA's involvement. Google is not an accurate test here because, despite its enormous significance, Philmont and relevant subjects have almost no web presence. — Dan | Talk 02:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I concur with Dan. Most of these articles are notable and are worth keeping. My question is, how should these articles be presented? Should they be in their own article space, merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, inserted as a subpage under Philmont Scout Ranch (despite a consensus against subpages), or another option that hasn't been considered yet? Solarusdude 04:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, a search for "Rich Cabins" (without the "camp") turns up rather more results. — Dan | Talk 15:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. My dad went to Philmont once; these are important to Philmont. --Maru (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. These would make far more sense as part of the main article. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went to Philmont so I may be biased but these should be kept. Here's why: more than 700,000 Scouts and leaders have backpacked through Philmont since 1938. These camps are familar to many people. With some additional work, the articles could be useful. Merging them into a single article or list is not a good idea because if information is added the article would be enormous. The information could be valuable but the only way to share it is to keep all the individual articles. Check out the WikiProject, the Philmont Scout Ranch category, and the article List of Philmont camps as well as the changes to the main Philmont article and a few of the camps (added an infobox).--L1AM 13:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawmill Camp --Woggly 07:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I couldn't find a copyvio, so I added a cleanup tag to the article. Robert 04:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Selberg[edit]

Vanity page, possibly a CV. Michael Slone 06:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. -- Michael Slone 06:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Norwegian architect. Obviously a CV, and possibly a copyvio too, if he didn't post it himself, but he seems to have been responsible for some major projects: several bridges, a football stadium, etc. If somebody rewrites the bio on a temp page, I think he is notable enough for an article. Keep if rewritten. Uppland 09:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten as per Uppland. Some of this is verifiable - see e.g. [8]. Dlyons493 Talk 12:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if rewritten as per Uppland. Qaz (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Rich Farmbrough 20:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Property Specification Language[edit]

nn computer program used by not so notable company Delete or Merge with Accellera --JAranda | yeah 06:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article claims this is a "standardised" language. Therefore there should be a reference to the organisation having published the standard. I don't see any. The company itself doesn't seam to be notable enough to justify the claim of a defacto standard. So, if no clear standard reference is given soonish, i'd say delete. Gtabary 23:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Accellera a well known standards body in its field, but I don't know much about this particular standard. --Apyule 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I suppose the Accellera article could use any content it can get at the moment. --fvw* 11:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A standard must be either widely used, or promulgated by soem more or less widely recongnized body (whether recognized de facto or de jure), in short it must be notable, or the producet of a notable creator. This appears to be neither. DES (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, even though it short article, it deserves it's own article... --Thv 11:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 20:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Christian denominations[edit]

I normally avoid lists unless its really unmaintanble or just pure junk but this list came from a very out-of-date source I mean more than 40 year old source. Listcruft at its worst Delete --JAranda | yeah 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Vote Change to Weak Keep Im going to give this page one month for an update to come if it doesn't Im going to replace this again on AFD ok? --JAranda | yeah 21:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if it is updated by the end of this nomination, delete if not. It might be maintainable if the denominations are required to be of a certain size before they are listed. -- Kjkolb 07:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stick on cleanup and see if others have proper information. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems a worthy topic for Wikipedia - so probably a cleanup candidate rather than a deletion. I agree that the page as it exists now is of little use. ESkog 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep and update. -- BD2412 talk 19:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, expand, and update. (I know, that's a lot of votes.) --Idont Havaname 22:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful to List of Christian denominations and leave a redirect. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Consensus is to delete. DS 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tramptech[edit]

"Tramptech is a little known internet based club." -- Kjkolb 07:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only does this article fail to assert notability, it actually asserts non-notability. It's borderline speedy. --A D Monroe III 17:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- BD2412 talk 00:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemiah 8[edit]

Duplicates material already on Wikisource. FJG 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — FJG 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like Bible articles (and this is not just a verse) but text with no article should be shot on sight. Can't we have a 'nothing but source text already on wikisource' as a speedy criterion. --Doc (?) 13:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Speedy for source text on wikisource is a good idea. Qaz (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 conversion. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

converted[edit]

Dictionary definition DannyWilde 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Delete. Dictionary definition. May have been a mistaken edit. --DannyWilde 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was article made into disambig page, by Zscout370. --Phroziac(talk) 23:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Russia[edit]

Note, this article is on the band, so what I suggest is delete the band article (who are not notable and used the article as a spam tool) ans recreate it with content on the term "Mother Russia." The band itself has a MySpace page, which MS actively asks for bands to get started there (I use it myself), and there is nothing notable about this band. Zach (Sound Off) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it's the name of a song off The Sisters of Mercy's Floodland album. Perhaps a redirect...? Grutness...wha? 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. If this became a redirect, by the name of the article, it would have to redirect to Russia; there's nothing here to salvage. --A D Monroe III 17:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Russia. There are pages that link to Mother Russia such as Battle of Stalingrad. Why the redirect was deleted in the first place is beyond me, but either way, the redirect is necessary and the band needs to go. It might also be better to make sure the redirect isn't deleted again if created. -Nameneko 19:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to Russia... Redwolf24 (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and made it a disambig page, since there are three things called Mother Russia. I am ready to close this now. Zach (Sound Off) 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETED as copyvio. Robert 23:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unique software systems[edit]

Long first person advert. I have no idea how notable this company is. -- RHaworth 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's copyright violation and I've just tagged it as such. CambridgeBayWeather 08:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked over the proper site [10] it may be worth an article. rewrite & Keep. CambridgeBayWeather 08:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a "style violation" rather than a copyvio - I am sure the company is happy for it to be here - they probably posted it themselves. But it is an insult to Wikipedia to think that we will accept content like this - should be deleted for that reason. -- RHaworth 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not wise to base one's decision upon information provided by the company itself on its own web site. See WP:CORP and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Research turns up nothing about this company except for business directory listings and corporate reviews that turn out to have been supplied by the company itself (see this example). There are no independently sourced works dealing with the company — no independent corporate biographies, books, teaching courses, consumer reports, or even (non-company-supplied) news articles. Nor is this company a necessary part of our stock market coverage. The WP:CORP criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 13:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, it's advertising for a smallish company. Nowt more, nowt less. Marcus22 14:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. DS

Turnip Head[edit]

Non-notable saying from usenet. -- Kjkolb 08:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 non-notable biography. (Deleted by User:Starblind) -Nameneko 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Mahowald[edit]

cute nn vanity, but nn vanity nonetheless. Grutness...wha? 08:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yet another speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 08:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utter garbage! I'd speedy it as an nn bio - except I'm not even sure what it is?? --Doc (?) 13:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied under A-7. No claim to notability in article. High-school freshman on swim team and chess club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two men charged[edit]

  • I couldn't find any evidence that this cocktail exists on Google, let alone that it is notable enough for an article, see search -- Kjkolb 08:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One word: cocktailcruft. Delete. -- SoothingR 08:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rubbish CambridgeBayWeather 08:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it really exists, transwiki. (Doubtful.) Otherwise, delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never heard of it and Google hasn't either. Probably some local bar thing that the creator didn't realize wasn't universal. Delete. ESkog 18:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all prev. arguments. feydey 23:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but I'll ask for one at the pub tonight, and if they know what I'm talking about I might change my mind. --Apyule 07:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Rich Farmbrough 20:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got-Next[edit]

Alexa ranking of 209,689. Punkmorten 08:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. DS 21:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McPheron[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D.D. Alarms[edit]

Advertisement JoanneB 09:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only mentions of this company are in business directory listings, free or paid for by the company. There are no independent published works relating to this company, such as independent news coverage or third party corporate biographies, at all. Nor is the company a necessary part of our stock market coverage. This company thus fails to satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Delete. Uncle G 12:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G. Qaz (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analyis Interchange Format[edit]

This page has two problems: the page title is a misspelling, and the contents describe AIFF (Audio Interchange File Format), which is something completely different. The page was linked as misspelled from the disambig page AIF. The correct spelling, Analysis Interchange Format, seems to be a real thing, but I couldn't find enough on it to make a decent stub. Apparently it has something to do with modelling embedded systems. I merged in the two sentences from Analyis Interchange Format containing information not in AIFF, rewritten to avoid GFDL problems. Unless someone wants to do a complete rewrite of this misspelled page, it should be deleted.Quale 09:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's just a collection of mistakes on mistakes. We need to start over from a clean slate. --A D Monroe III 17:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Karmafist 15:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UBO[edit]

Okay, it starts as a "tv setup that lets you order movies,sporting events and concerts for free", is sold to Time Warner and for some reason now has film contracts. UBO.com is the apparently unrelated Urban Box Office, which deals in music and isn't owned by Time Warner. There were three results for a search of UBO and the creator, David Webster, but they were all irrelevant. I didn't have any luck searching to see if Time Warner bought a company named UBO. Time Warner owns HBO, but I didn't find anything about UBO being its predecessor, either. -- Kjkolb 10:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as almost certain hoax. None of the named properties appear on the IMDB, and the $550,000 ("in cash") is an awfully small sum for something with that much content... that works out to about $13,500 per property, which is next to nothing for an original movie, TV series, or miniseries. Even the famously low-budget movies Clerks and The Blair Witch Project cost about $27,000 and $35,000 to make, respectively. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Jni) -Nameneko 01:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Attard[edit]

NonsenseMONGO 10:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. Speedy Delete The Land 11:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is made-up rubbish. A search reveals no notable Benjamin Attards existing for a rewrite. Delete. Uncle G 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedy deleted this as patent nonsense. I think alternative histories (like future histories) so obviously fake that no sane person would believe in them do qualify for CSD G1. jni 12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (3 keep, 13 delete, 3 merge (discounting IPs)). Robert 23:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança[edit]

This was already voted for deletion here. The article is totally POV. Its bloody irresponsible of us to allow the wikipedia to be host for lunatic claims. Its the same thing as a micronation. If i decide to crate the Duchy of Bumpatabumpah in my flat and write 10 internet sites about it, that doenst mean that i deserve an article on wikipedia. This is an embarassment to the project. muriel@pt 10:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability. muriel@pt 09:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adenda: the article is also stuffed with lies, such as Dom Rosario is the president also of the Royal House of Portugal Museum , which does not exist except in the guy's courtyard.muriel@pt 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember that Muriel is the author of the article about "Duarte Pio,duke of Braganza" and seems to be a fierce supporter of duarte (or miguelist supporter). So is clear and foreseen that she want to delete the dom Rosario article.Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This Duke of Bragança (there are 2 claimants) is one of a small number of claimants to leadership of the former royal house of Portugal, and is most certainly deserving of a Wikipedia article. --Centauri 10:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but if you want you can also be one and have your wiki article :) muriel@pt 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portugal has been a republic for around 100 years now, which seems unlikely to change. Unless it is established that this issue is of any interest to anybody except that "small number of claimants to leadership", delete. Sandstein 10:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The duke of Braganza dom Rosario is a pretender of the Royal House of Portugal. His rights come from abdication of the last daughter of the king Charles of Portugal, Maria Pia, and he has also many jurisdictional international recognitions. These are the more important facts. Others are only talk. I don't understand because miss Muriel want hide this truth. I remember her that now are not in dictatorial (salazarist) period and this is a democratic encyclopedia where is important introduce to all people the historical truth and not the personal certainties. Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This is the author of the lies. muriel@pt 12:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • why? please explain Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You wrote that Dom Rosario is the president also of the Royal House of Portugal Museum . This does not exist. [11] / and this is created by the Rosario supporters. Isnt it funny that the thing doesnt exist in Portugal? Producing an internet page does not produce a truth. muriel@pt 12:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dom Rosario meanwhile has decided to open also in Italy this museum (this is the italian seat). Soon also in Lisbon will open a seat of this museum! There are works of art of undreds of artists. Museum of the Royal House of Portugal Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The Italian seat? An apartment in Rome's suburbia with the museum in the balcony? lol Producing a page does not produce a truth. muriel@pt 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The museum has an area of 1000 mq and one person can find works of art of undreds of international artists. Muriel, your foolish talk does not produce a truth. Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The Duke of Braganza is worthy of entry in Wikipedia. But is Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha the Duke? Or even a 'real' pretender to the title? Google gives me 14 hits for him. Now it may be that I'm missing something here but I would have imagined that a bona fide claimant to the title would have a lot more than that on google. So until I find out otherwise, I go for delete. Marcus22 14:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you search in Google.com : " Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza ", you can find 337 results.Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Following the link you post below, I obtain 337 hits. But that's well into the realms of not-notable. Also, a good number of those 337 do not seem to necessarily refer to the same person. (I would of course expect a lot of returns for Saxe Coburg Gotha as that was, I think, the family name of Prince Albert. (Husband of Queen Victoria). But there is not obviously a link between the two families). Sorry, I'm still not convinced. Marcus22 18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A further point. Just checking again and that link appears to be to google in Italian. Searching google.com (in English) I get 0 results for the same name. Whilst I don't purport to understand why this is - and freely admit I may be making a mistake - at the moment that tends to convince me that this chap is not-notable. At least, not-notable enough. Marcus22 19:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on Hilda Toledano. Which clearly states the very big flaws in this claim to royalty. Average Earthman 14:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not show that this person has done anything in his life that would make him notable in the sense of an encyclopedia. Martg76 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, unverifiable. There are no independent sources to cite. --A D Monroe III 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A sub-trivial snapshot of a sub-trivia sub-culture, and hasn't made much of a splash in the news, unlike for example those women who said they were Anastasia. Even Hilda Toledano, who you'd expect to have made some impact, has a trivial internet presence made up mostly of Wikipedia mirrors. Also, if I search for "Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza" [12] I get no hits at all, if I change the Z to a C I get seven, all of which are Wikipedia mirrors. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you search in google : Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza you can find 337 results Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • 337 Google hits is small. Even smaller is 144, which are the unique Google hits. Even smaller is zero, which is what you get if you Google "Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Braganza" with the quotes. Finding pages that have these words in any order is nonsense. --A D Monroe III 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also if you search in google about Duarte Pio of Braganza you can find only 509 results and only 17 results if you search "Duarte Pio of Braganza"with the quotes. Manuel 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • All the 3337 are: your pages and wikipedia mirrors. Producing a page does not produce a truth. muriel@pt 09:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The same problem is for "your" Duarte pio of Braganza Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
          • That's because you've botched the search term. Google yields est. 3,140 hits for "Duarte Pio de Bragança". Choess 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know enough about this topic, but what I can see is that the grammar in the article is horrible. If its deleted, fine. If its kept, and it has merit, it needs a rewrite. Stu 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately Manuel de Sousa has chosen to use Wikipedia as a means of publicizing a fringe character's absurd pretensions, in a way that does not recognize the absurdity of the claims, and is thus misleading. An article with a neutral point of view would be under the man's real name "Rosario Poidimani", and would point out that [1] his "claim" is through a purported (and unlikely) bastard daughter (impossible) [2] who "abdicated in his favor" (impossible) to whom he is [3] unrelated. The claim is ludicrous, and unimportant, and most importantly, with Manuel continuing to propagandize in this and other articles (see the vote at Talk:Hilda Toledano), it is apparent we cannot maintain a neutral article. This is just a fork of the Hilda Toledano article (it's the same "claim", dressed up for an unrelated man), created when it was made apparent that that article would not be residing at "Maria Pia of Saxony Coburgo Gotha and Bragança". If we could maintain an article like this one, which makes the absurdity of the claims clear, it would be worth doing. But with Manuel, who is associated with the websites of this fantasy royalty faction, showing no commitment to NPOV, and a relentless pursuit of falsely depicting these claims as reasonable and true, this seems impossible. The article as it stands could come from Poidimani's own website! - Nunh-huh 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nunh-huh is the typical example of user that with his groundless certainties thinks to know the truth (and the unique truth). He can seem a Stair Sainty disciple and he can spit out sentences only reading and founded on a web-site [13]. For this web site dom Rosario has sued the owner of this web-page(Guy Stair Sainty) alleging libel against this person(also member of an association [14] where one of patron is also Duarte Pio of Braganza, and consequently is not a impartial scholar of dynastic matter in the our argument)and in november will start the case against Stair Sainty. So Nunh-huh please don't judge you because there is a impartial tribunal that will judge this. Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Please. Anyone so silly as to sue a website (or whose "candidacy" is so weak that he feels he has to sue a website) can hardly expect to be taken seriously as a candidate for heir to the "throne" of Portugal. - Nunh-huh 07:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But only a sentence of a impartial tribunal can confirm the autenticity of all the documents present in the web site www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org . The scholar of dynastic matter Stair Sainty( he is not a historian because a historian judge only after check the autenticity of all the documents and this is not the case of Sainty) found his certainties on the falsity and lie of these documents. Only a defenitive sentence can prove the superficiality of this scholar and can prove the close relation that this person has with Duarte Pio of Braganza. Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Their authenticity can't be confirmed because the originals don't exist, as far as can be determined. Setting aside the issue of "Maria Pia's" natural birth, her supposed legitimation/elevation as an Infanta of Portugal is based upon a single typewritten document, dated 1959, purporting (on the authority of the lady herself) to be a transcription of the Royal document. The original has never been produced, nor evidence brought forth (e.g., from the Royal Archives) to corroborate it; indeed, while I'm not familiar with the various Portugese constitutions of the time, I find it difficult to believe that the King had the power to unilaterally confer succession privileges. There are reasons why this claim is not taken seriously, and the supposed ill-will of Miguelists has nothing to do with it. (Side note: I don't know precisely what litigation is in hand, but Mr. Sainty has won the initial round; here is a transcript in Italian.)Choess 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll trust Muriel's judgement on this matter, and at any rate, if we included every self-appointed pretender to every throne, vacant or otherwise, the list would be endlessly long. I have no problem with including pretenders if they are publicly known as such, but this one isn't. David Cannon 22:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't include any pretender to any throne,because in this case there are jurisdictional sentence [15],[16],[17],[18],historicans[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],.... and many monarchic supporters that consider dom Rosario the only legitimate and lawful duke of Braganza.Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The <embedded questions> above are mine. David Cannon 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See above the<embedded answers> Manuel 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Hilda Toledano. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Zoe (Otherwise, Delete)--Apyule 07:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm open to redirecting "Rosario Poidimani" to Hilda Toledano and adding a section there, but it should clearly indicate that Rosario's claims are not recognized outside of his circle of friends. Choess 00:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretenders (legitimate or otherwise) are interesting in their own right and noteworthy. Look at the controversy this article generated! Noteworthy, IMHO. 208.27.111.121 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This pretender is only mentioned in 2 places: his own pages and wikipedia mirrors. He is non-verifiable. muriel@pt 20:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The right of this pretender derive from the lawful decision of Maria Pia of Braganza, already recognized by many neutral historical international encyclopedias. Manuel 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless, this pretender is only mentioned in 2 places: his own pages and wikipedia mirrors. He is non-verifiable. muriel@pt 11:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This particularly impostor's claim to the throne is so patently ridiculous, and his notability so questionable, that I can't see any value to this page. BTW, in case anyone is confused, this guy is not the same person as the Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza, the generally recognized pretender to the Portuguese throne. This is just some random Italian dude who claims that he should be King of Portugal because a crazy old lady who claimed to be, but was not, the illegitimate daughter of one of the later kings of Portugal, supposedly "abdicated" in his favor. We have an article on said old lady, Hilda Toledano, who is, I suppose vaguely notable. Any information on this gentleman can be contained at her article, if it is absolutely necessary. john k 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I’ve argued about this also in wiki.pt, and therefore I decided to vote it here. The article is clearly publicity, and the claims of that gentleman simply a non-sense. Just like Muriel says, producing an internet page does not produce a truth. Anyone of us could also claim to be an illegitimate son of an old Portuguese king, forge a genealogy and other evidences, and hence declares to be a claimant to the duchy of Braganza and the Portuguese crown… Quite easy, don’t you think? Another option (which I suggested in wiki.pt) is to redirect the page to claimants of the Duchy of Braganza and then protect it to avoid its recreation or further vandalism against it… --Brian Boru 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where there is any substance or interest in a pretender to a title we might as well have them in. However, I concur with the micronation analogy. The Land 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As embarassing this person is, why is he not warranted to have an article? I don't think this work should be deleted, as ridiculous this person might be. There are enough articles of other pretenders, look up that famous "Emperor of the United States". Gryffindor 20:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Gryffindor, its not the same thing. Rosario only appears in his own net pages and wikipedia mirrors. He is using wikipedia as a platform of propaganda. He is non-verifiable. We cant allow this. muriel@pt 11:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Muriel, only your attempt to hide and obstruct the knowledge of this pretender is a platform of antidemocratic propoganda in favour of Duarte Pio. And this is not impartial for a democratic encyclopedia as Wikipedia. We cant allow this. Manuel 8 October 2005 (UTC
        • Manuel, Duarte Pio is verifiable. Dont even try to dispute this - if nothing else stands for you, try checking the guest list for the wedding of Felipe, Prince of Asturias. Rosario only appears in your sites and in wikipedia mirrors. I personally couldnt care less for Duarte Pio and monarchy in Portugal or wherever. What i dont want is wikipedia to be the sole reference of obscure pretenders, micronations, clubs, writers, singers, etc etc. muriel@pt 14:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Muriel, Rosario is a obscure pretender in your consideration. You are not a impartial judge that can pass judment about this. Rosario has many monarchic supporters and jurisdictional recognitions of many Sovereign States.This is the most important check about his pretender rights.Manuel 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia should not allow itself to be used by this person to lend spurious credence to his claims. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:17, 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 · Katefan0(scribble) 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

نوح[edit]

This page has been on WP:PNT since 1 September. Physchim62 10:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Arabic. No idea whether its anything useful or not. andy 07:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I tried translating this online and got a very dodgy translation. From the results, I can guess that the article is religiously based - "Islam" and "God" appearing in the translation amongst other things. File:Smily.jpg FireFox  T C 19:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Noah, but I think it is in a Quran context, not in a bible one. CG 11:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely a synopsis of the story of Noah. The phrasing of the article has a religious tone, but it follows along with the Biblical / Qu'ranic tale itself. I translated the first bit about his lineage, I'll get to the rest of it if y'all want. [email protected]
I would say Transwiki to Arabic Wikipedia. Any volunteers? Physchim62 11:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would have to be merge into ar:نوح. Physchim62 13:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assuming that both the English and Arabic wikipedias already have articles on Noah. PatGallacher 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Yes, Arabic wikipedia has an article on Noah, at ar:نوح. Physchim62 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if we don't have anyone who can translate it (and a month on PNT indicates that may be the case) then even the greatest article couldn't be useful to the en crowd. ESkog 18:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - surely redundant with Noah and Nuh. ~~ N (t/c) 18:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of Koranic references to Noah. Also, there are some mentions to Hadiths about Noah/Nuh... There's no need to translate it as we have Noah#Islamic and Similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an#Noah/Nuh and the flood as well. Delete. Cheers -- Svest 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Delete, its two weeks on WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete material seems to exist elsewhere, and it's unlikely that someone would search for نوح on the english language edition. --Apyule 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grillos[edit]

This article has been on WP:PNT since 14 September. Physchim62 10:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

literally, looks like greek to me ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is Greek, and it seems to be about a village or town - it looks like it could make a good article. FireFox  T C E 18:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Greek article about a village near Ancient Olympia (some 10 miles away). It is part of the Municipality of Skyllous (Krestena, about 3 miles away) on the road leading from Pyrgos (capital of the Perfecture of Ilias) to Andritsena, a village town some 30 miles away, where the Temple of Epicurean Apollo is situated. It was written for a Greek magazine a couple of years ago by this writer who also retains the article's copyright.
I'm sorry, when you say "this writer" do you mean that you are the author, or that some guy is the writer, he's got the copyright, and this is a copyvio? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because its two weeks on WP:PNT are up and because it's apparently a copyvio. If someone who knows the town wants to replace this with a stub (or more) written in English before this AFD, then obviously that should be kept. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teguh Imam Subarkah[edit]

This article in Indonesian (we think) has been on WP:PNT since 16 September. Physchim62 10:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. From google search, he is apparently a lecturer at an university in Indonesia. However, the article doesn't mention this info. Furthermore, there are only 10 results of googling his name. Besides, the article is a personal point-of-view of the guy. *drew 12:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp"[edit]

This article in Swedish has been on WP:PNT since 16 September. Physchim62 10:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Appears to be in Sweedish. Looks like a cut& paste, quiite probably a copyvio, so a quik tranlation, enough to determins what to do with the articel, might be enough. DES (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish indeed. There's a first chapter, "MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp", as well. The title means "Music - History of music and basic musical terms". The capitalized subheadings mean "Basic acoustic terms" and "The acoustics of musical instruments", which probably tells you what you need to know about the content. Both texts end with the statement "The text is written in 1974-1977 and edited in 2005 by Anne Jaenzon." Considering the fact that both these articles were posted by User:Jaenzon, who have placed similar dumps on both the user page and the user talk page, I'd say this might be a case of a well-meaning newcomer wanting to contribute what is probably pre-existing personal work, but not knowing how to go about it. As for the value of the texts, I don't know. At a quick glance, they don't look particularly well-written, although they might well be factually correct. I am not familliar enough with acoustics to say. Without checking, my guess is that they mostly duplicate existing content. / Alarm 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have placed a note on the user's talk page, which seems to have been the subject of a blanking/revert war by various IP users. We'll see what happens -- if there is no response I'll probably take these to WP:AfD. DES (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The quick look i had + the somewhat limited knowledge I have about the subject seems to indicate that it is factually correct. However, even if the copyright issue is solved it would need som SERIOUS work. It is way to academic the way it's written now (it's like some rubbish I would write... :). I concur with the suspicion that it is probably a well meaning newbie that has just pasted his school work. /probell (Talk) 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it's well-written (which is debatable, but I'd say not spectacularly) or factually correct (which it is, as far as I could determine from a very quick look) this kind of article does not belong at Wikipedia. Wikibooks, perhaps, if anything. I haven't verified this, but I'm certain everything in this article is covered in the right articles. If someone wants to read through all this to see if there's anything to merge, be my guest, but I think we might as well delete it. EldKatt (Talk) 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up, and the above comments imply it's mostly unsalvageable anyway. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angr --Apyule 07:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Been around long enough and hasn't been translated. Masterhatch 10:19, 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. Robert 23:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp" : 2[edit]

This article in Swedish has been on WP:PNT since 16 September. Physchim62 10:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Appears to be in Sweedish. Looks like a cut& paste, quiite probably a copyvio, so a quik tranlation, enough to determins what to do with the articel, might be enough. DES (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish indeed. There's a first chapter, "MUSIK - Musikhistoria och musikaliska grundbegrepp", as well. The title means "Music - History of music and basic musical terms". The capitalized subheadings mean "Basic acoustic terms" and "The acoustics of musical instruments", which probably tells you what you need to know about the content. Both texts end with the statement "The text is written in 1974-1977 and edited in 2005 by Anne Jaenzon." Considering the fact that both these articles were posted by User:Jaenzon, who have placed similar dumps on both the user page and the user talk page, I'd say this might be a case of a well-meaning newcomer wanting to contribute what is probably pre-existing personal work, but not knowing how to go about it. As for the value of the texts, I don't know. At a quick glance, they don't look particularly well-written, although they might well be factually correct. I am not familliar enough with acoustics to say. Without checking, my guess is that they mostly duplicate existing content. / Alarm 22:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have placed a note on the user's talk page, which seems to have been the subject of a blanking/revert war by various IP users. We'll see what happens -- if there is no response I'll probably take these to WP:AfD. DES (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The quick look i had + the somewhat limited knowledge I have about the subject seems to indicate that it is factually correct. However, even if the copyright issue is solved it would need som SERIOUS work. It is way to academic the way it's written now (it's like some rubbish I would write... :). I concur with the suspicion that it is probably a well meaning newbie that has just pasted his school work. /probell (Talk) 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it's well-written (which is debatable, but I'd say not spectacularly) or factually correct (which it is, as far as I could determine from a very quick look) this kind of article does not belong at Wikipedia. Wikibooks, perhaps, if anything. I haven't verified this, but I'm certain everything in this article is covered in the right articles. If someone wants to read through all this to see if there's anything to merge, be my guest, but I think we might as well delete it. EldKatt (Talk) 09:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iglesia metodista libre dominicana[edit]

This article in Spanish has been on WP:PNT since 18 September. Physchim62 10:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Spanish. FireFox  T C E 13:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feels like a copyvio to me, though no online source -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth -- I did google a couple references to the Free Methodist Church in the Dominican Republic; apparently they have about 6000 members according to adherents.com. The article, though: on speed-reading through it, it is clearly not NPOV and does have the feel as though it was lifted from some other document (but apparently NOT online--I tried googling half a dozen variations and phrases and never got a hit). I routinely look for spanish articles to practice translation, and religious topics are one of my main interests, but I think I'll skip this one.--KJPurscell 04:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its two weeks on WP:PNT are up and it seems to be unencyclopedic anyway. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Reads like a religous pamplet was copied and pasted.Dakota 05:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Topco[edit]

Advertisement page for a sex toy. Sandstein 10:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reason given.--MacRusgail 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sex toys would be classed as notable, see Rampant Rabbit, especially if it's a popular brand. Will need to be rewritten to include encyclopedic and factual information. Rob Church Talk 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sex toys are not notable, and must earn it like any other product. The best-selling brand of dildo might be notable, as might the first ben-wah balls used in space. In other words, a toy must assert its importance or significance. Denni☯ 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mass-produced items are important and signficant. Kappa 01:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the whole problem here, Kappa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that everything is inherently important and significant. You have not, at least as far as I can tell by your votes, found a single thing you deem as unimportant or insignificant. It appears as if, in essence, you have no criteria for determining if the subject of an article is appropriate and acceptable or not, beyond whether or not it is verifiable. (I believe I saw a delete vote from you once on that basis.) Without such criteria in guiding us as to what is suitable for inclusion and what is not, Wikipedia just ends up becoming the world's largest junk drawer. Denni☯ 01:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is whether this particular information should be retained or lost, not what criteria I may use. Kappa 02:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not if they're completely interchangable with the larger subject. Craftsman #0 Philips screwdriver wouldn't merit an article. (No vote on this article in particular.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hee! It came up as a blue link (to Craftsman - nobody has made an article about that particular screwdriver). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It came up because of the hash mark: anything following it is treated as a section link, and if there's no section it defaults to the main page: Craftsman #2 Wrench and Craftsman #insane load of gibberish both go to the same place, so the "screwdriver example" doesn't mean what Kappa claims it means. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Doesn't merit an article" is not a reason for deletion, as your screwdriver example demonstrates. Kappa 11:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you click the link? There's no article about that particular screwdriver (and I'm sure Craftman has made dozens, if not hundreds, of different #0 screwdrivers, even) because it's an interchangable member of a homogenous group. In the case of such a homogenous group, you describe the group as a whole and let that description suffice for the whole
          "Doesn't merit an article" is one of the two main reasons something would and should be listed on AFD (the other reason is "Unverifiable"); empty articles, copyvio, gibberish/non-English, and such are dealt with elsewhere. "Doesn't merit an article" is why we don't have an article about my toenails, every streetlamp in the world, every single person that has ever been in a news story (be it feature news or obituary), etc. Now, different people may have very different standards of what merits an article, but to say that "This is not an encyclopedic subject" isn't a deletion criterion is just silly. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why would we even mention your toenails or every single person who has been in a news story? Kappa 15:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • We wouldn't, because they are not subjects that merit an article in an encyclopedia. When someone votes "nn" or "non-notable" or "not encyclopedic" or "doesn't merit an article," they're saying it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia for the same reason (probably to a lesser degree) that we don't have an article on my toenails or the dear departed Uncle Mortimer. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • So everything mentioned has to merit an article? Kappa 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • BZZT. Strawman fallacy. Ten-yard penalty or a yellow card, depending on your country. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Is your formatting correct? Surely the "strawman fallacy" applies to the toenails... Kappa 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's not a strawman argument. I'm simply pointing out that everyone has a point at which they would vote "This subject is notr encyclopedic." For some, this standard is only in the case of patently ridiculous articles (e.g. my toenails, Uncle Morty), whereas for others this standard includes other things (e.g. people with unusual names, unremarkable sex toys, elementary schools). As this is a subjective stadard that varies from person to person, someone can vote "Doesn't merit an article" someone else can disagree, without either person being objectively wrong or voting or bad faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • To the contrary, many, many individual items and articles do not merit encyclopedic articles. As such, when you have an article written about an unencyclopedic subject (let's say Uncle Morty) and Uncle Morty's article comes up on AFD, people are perfectly right in saying "Uncle Morty doesn't merit an article" as their reason for deletion. "Doesn't merit an article" is a perfectly valid deletion criterion. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Uncle Morty is a ridiculous analogy, no-one would try to look him up in an encyclopedia. Kappa 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Uncle Morty might. Uncle Morty's wife might. Uncle Morty's nieces and nephews probably would. So would all Uncle Morty's friends. Heck, more people might look up Uncle Marty than would look up some of the all-but-empty school articles piling up in the corners here. (But he still doesn't get an article. He's not a school.) Denni☯ 01:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this product is encyclopedic. Gamaliel 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know sex toys, and this brand has never crossed my radar. Xoloz 05:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Gamaliel said. --Calton | Talk 04:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 20:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathan[edit]

Article is about a cartoonist, but I cannot verify this, and I don't think that it can be. First, the last name (or first name, I'm not sure) is missing. Second, I cannot find evidence of existence of the magazine he works for; Aanantha Viakatan turns up nothing on Google (even though I am aware that such magazines might have a hard time reaching mention on the web). I am suggesting deletion based on lack of verifiability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine is Anantha Vikatan/Ananta Vikatan and is very popular in Tamil Nadu. I am not qualified to comment on the popularity of the person. Tintin 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a valid entry. (Madhan cartoonist tamil) in google gets quite a few hits. In Tamil, 'dh' and 'th' are written the same way, which could explain the title. Tintin 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the data from my friends from Tamil Nadu Tintin 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not everyone in the world needs to have a first name or last name. In fact, traditional Tamil names do not. Ananda Vikatan (one of many spellings used in English) is readable at [25]. Mathan is quite well known among current-day readers of Tamil magazines. Lastly, the Google test has its own biases. Ambarish 05:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the info and verification. I withdraw my nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can vouch for the notability of both Ananda Vikatan and Mathan. I echo the points made by Ambarish on Tamil names and Google test bias. Also, Mathan can very well be his nom de plume with or without any connection to his real name. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly rename to Madhan, which seems to be the more common English way of writing the name. --Aquillion 20:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I reciprocate the comments above. Madhan is a pretty renowned cartoonist in Tamilnadu with his unique style of cartooning in the Anandha Vikatan magazine. Ram
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

தமிழ்[edit]

This article in Tamil has been on WP:PNT since 19 September and is thought not to be worth translating. Physchim62 11:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

thai? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hazard Tamil (since the word appears in the article). Spoken in Sri Lanka.
Having had a look around I can (almost) guarantee that it is, in fact, Tamil.
The article's title is "Tamil" and the only significant sentence on the page translates as "this page shall serve as a place to announce new improvements in Tamil internet/computer-related resources". The rest of the article seems to be a list of phrases that i surmise were meant to act as headings for the various types of improvements the author hoped to list. The page has no real content and as such should be deleted. Krithin 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Punkmorten 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Krithin. 23skidoo 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krithin. ESkog 18:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. advertising in Tamil. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete well, if the that's what the translation is, it should *not* be in the main namespace. Also, why should we have a verncular pages in en:? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Hottentot
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory[edit]

Sub-stub with no information and noclaim of notability. - Laur 11:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand or merge with University of New Hampshire. This is a real laboratory which seems to be fairly important in its field, but it is a substub right now. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Content does not explain importance of the lab. Vegaswikian 06:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's nothing to merge. --fvw* 11:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:fvw unless new content celarly establishing separate notability is added to the article. DES (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fvw --JAranda | yeah 03:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Oliveira[edit]

Non-notable Brazilian high school teacher/business consultant. Physchim62 11:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn Many of the Googles for [26] refer to someone born in 1918. Dlyons493 Talk 12:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like vanity to me. Gtabary 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should we admit personal biographies about non-notable people in Wikipedia? Elapsed 10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't assert notability (though it might to some, so probably best not speedied). Also, all articles with the term "personal development" in them should be deleted. --fvw* 11:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. I see nothing that remotly looks like an assertion of notability here. DES (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; probably vanity. Re: "Personal development", as the one who translated the article, that might not be the best way to put it (maybe something along the lines of "personal path" as opposed to "career path" might be better), but I think I've captured the meaning fairly well. --Spangineer (háblame) 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sox Australia[edit]

Advertisement for a completely non-notable company. Ambi 11:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Training about how to make corporate disclosures??? nn Andrew pmk | Talk 19:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure adv. Speedy? Gtabary 23:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising --Apyule 07:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.James Pinnell 02:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --DarbyAsh 08:44, 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 DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dagligvarer[edit]

NN band. Their albums "Blackest Embrace Eternal" and "Infernal Funeral Macabre" gets 10 google hits each. Punkmorten 11:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find any thing about this band on the web, except for forks that led back to this article. Also, this band is not mentioned in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Dagligvarer is definetely non-notable. -- SoothingR 15:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never heard of them. The name (meaning groceries) leads me to believe either the article is a joke, or that the band is a non-notable joke metal band, or both. -Kvaks 06:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETED by Chris 73. Robert 03:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph young[edit]

Who is this guy? Either considerably expand, or delete.--Austrian 13:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find any relevant hits on Google. Possibly speediable. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — appears to be vanity. I Could find no evidence of a well-known body builder of either this name or Joe Young. :) — RJH 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not speedyable, because the article does assert significance: "premier bodybuilder of the 21st century." Whether the significance is genuine or not, is up to AfD to decide. Given the sparse Google results, none of which appear to be related to this particular person, my vote is to delete. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Walker VII, CPE[edit]

A self-promotional piece, but it tries to assert notability. Joyous (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The name of the article jumps up and down screaming vanity, and the content isn't impressive - red links by the hoard, and puffing up the importance of a hair removal technique and a (rather obscure I would imagine) trade magazine. Amateur acting credits aren't exactly thrilling, either. What's a CPE, anyway? Average Earthman 14:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting case. Being a practitioner of hair removal definitely isn't notable by our standards, and if the article was just that it would be speediable. The true claims to notability are related to acting. The article lists several stage roles, both high-school and college, and two feature films, one of which (Failure) has no IMDB entry, and the other (My Dark Lady) does but it seems very obscure and doesn't list the article's subject among the cast. He did, however, go to school with some notable people, though I'm sorry to say that isn't enough, or even borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious nn vanity. Vsmith 20:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Starblind's analysis. MCB 06:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. Vanity. Quale 17:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The God Squad[edit]

Apparent hoax. I am unable to verify anything about this. Searching on "The God Squad" +"<any name from the article>" turns up nothing.-- GraemeL (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-existent group with squatted web page. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good search engine key string. Too small a result. Gtabary 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of a few potential cantidates for an article under this name, but the existing content is unrelated. --Apyule 07:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saberwyn 22:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave These people are important characters form a story written in a town in South Dakota, many children there are reading about them and writing essays and need this resource for their school work. (preceding unsigned comment by 151.188.16.11 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete as sockpuppet-supported hoax. Same IP is being a naughty little boy or girl right about now with a couple of other questionable contribs. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adbrowsing[edit]

This article is an orphaned, self-promotional, non-notable neologism for the practice of following ad links.. which strikes me as rather dubious advice at that, promises of "serendipity" notwithstanding. MC MasterChef 14:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anagosity[edit]

Neologism. Google says 91. --Celestianpower hablamé 14:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew (TV Series)[edit]

An orphaned hoax page by User:24.46.170.164 - (contributions), who has vandalized a number of other pages inserting references to a previously deleted article on the same subject, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Branigan: Boy Genius MC MasterChef 14:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator -- SoothingR 14:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete' You have to admit, its kind of funny... the kid listed the names and birthdays of all his family members (aunts, uncles, and cousins included) at the end of the article. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 03:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place for nutters to make up thier own TV shows!!! Bwfc 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (Cruel but True)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 23:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Stephens[edit]

nn political candidate. The page appears to be advertising for him MacRusgail 15:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like an adv. Gtabary 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Robert 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yocrunch[edit]

Non-notable, uninteresting product MacRusgail 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete unless if we plan to list every product ever, this should go Ashibaka (tock) 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No please: do not list every product ever :-) Gtabary 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless and until we come up with a good set of standards to determine brand notability. Clearly, this is different from the Mach 3, but how? Meelar (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have such a set of notability criteria for products. See WP:CORP. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have suggested merge, but there isn't enough material really decide where to merge it, nor is there any real loss in tossing it. --Gmaxwell 02:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Anyone who wants to keep lousy articles like this should spend some time to improve them instead, so they are less likely to end up on AFD. Quale 04:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... which is exactly what I've just done. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People independent of the company have written about the product, its marketing, its packaging, its manufacturing process, and even about inventive ways to incorporate it into a kosher diet. (See the references that I've added to the article.) The WP:CORP criteria for products are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep for the rewritten articel. Seems mildly notable. I wouldn't be devastated if this were deleted, however. DES (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good on Uncle G. Keep with the additions. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rewritten version establishes notability. --GraemeL (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable product. I'm not convinced that it's an original invention either. Bwithh 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. MCB 06:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable yoghurt-cruft. Why would the author choose to write about the product over the company, which would likely pass the notability test? Dottore So 11:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article about the company would be fine, but I'd guess it's more likely that someone would come to Wikipedia looking for information about this product than about the company. JamesMLane 18:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete brand with local/regional importance only, i.e. not even national, obviously not global. No unique features. Would, maybe, fit in in a list of the company's products, no need for an article. Nabla 18:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, brand with importance, if only local/regional. Kappa 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect/move to company page, which would solve the unlikely problem of a Wikipedia search for Yocrunch. Nothing links to this page. I don't see anything notable; Wikipedia doesn't cover the several more successful imitators of the product, so there's no call to identify the original one (even assuming that this is original). Precedent: Trix Yogurt and Danimals currently redirect to the company page. FRCP11 13:36, 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 DELETED as copyvio by Snowspinner. Robert 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On2group[edit]

Advertising MacRusgail 15:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETED by Snowspinner. Robert 23:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gymeria[edit]

Apparently nonsense, please advise MacRusgail 15:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- As per nomination, 0 Google hits [27], and 0 Google hits for Aaarkediou [28]. Ben D. 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. -- The page's creator has created Aaarkediou. Ben D. 15:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have seen this page. Some connection with Star Wars supposedly. --MacRusgail 15:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, it says "The Aarkedioun Orb, known for its ability to inaccurately predict the outcome of most political elections" was lost in the Hoth System. Ben D. 15:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. Robert 04:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pity party[edit]

Dicdef, possible neologism MacRusgail 15:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Not a neologism, I have heard this phrase all my life. I would want this to have something significant added to really feel good about keeping it though. Perhaps it would be better if it was included in an article about destructive coping mechanisms. Qaz (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary Common enough phrase (245,000 Google hits) but dicdefs belong on Wiktionary. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per Andrew pmk. MCB 06:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 under csd a7. Joyous (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manasi Gadag[edit]

vanity article MacRusgail 15:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fmttm[edit]

It's just an insult page. Something seems to have gone amiss with the Afd process so I'm completing it.Dlyons493 Talk 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - nonsense. --MacRusgail 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a real magazine but if it is kept it needs to have the attack removed. Qaz (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete it's not really an attack page, just an article about a fanzine which was vandalised. Still, I'm voting to delete as not notable, and also because of the shaky precedent of keeping an article on a fanzine. There's already a link on the Middlesbrough F.C. page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of circulation does a magazine need to be included? Just wondering. I often wonder when trying to decide on books and magazines how "big" we should require them to be. Qaz (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a very good question. I don't think there's a simple numerical answer (i.e. 50,000 copies average sold for 3+ years) as such stats are easy to fudge and not necessarily indicitive of much of anything... for example, many free local "shopper" publications have circulation into the hundreds of thousands, that doesn't really make them notable. In my opinion, the fact that this one self-identifies as a "fanzine" is probably enough that it isn't an encylcopedic topic. Certainly no scope beyond Middlesbrough F.C., so in that article it belongs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable (small circulation) zine. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under criterion A6. On further note, the magazine itself does not seem to be notable, as I cannot find any more than five or so relevant Google results. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you look at the history, this page has been repeatedly vandalized during its brief existence. I've just reverted it to the last non-attack version, but this may not last. When voting on this article, please make sure you look at earlier revisions too. Ilmari Karonen 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Super localy limited scope. Gtabary 22:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (no consensus). I am a bit concerned about some incivility in a few of the votes, however I also realize that the article was rewritten during the course of the debate. Vote count stands at 5k-8d-1r which is less than the usual 2/3 threshold anyway. Kappa has asked that this page should be moved to Luxurious (song) and that the page at luxurious be a disambig; since people searching for "Luxurious" might well look for the economics article, I will be bold and do that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luxurious[edit]

A not-yet-released single, which can't be notable as ... it hasn't yet been released. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources have been added to prove this single's eventual release. Winnermario 19:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You do not request for an article to be deleted because you are the one without the knowledge. Also, references have been added now. DrippingInk 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP is not a crystal ball, but this seriously is not one of those cases OmegaWikipedia 06:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. An unreleased single certainly can be notable, if it's highly anticipated and famous, by a very successful artist. This applies to all kinds of things. National elections are notable before they happen, spacecraft before they're launched, major hurricanes before they hit land, major movies before they hit theaters... Like, duh. Everyking 05:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Day Remains (band)[edit]

Had an A7 speedy tag placed on this article which isn't meant for bands. I'll list this here Rx StrangeLove 16:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY DELETED as patent nonsense by HOTR. Robert 23:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David C Harrison[edit]

Seems to be running joke about David Harrison and wenches by SinghaDog & 64.83.231.234 MacRusgail 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about this too... I don't see why it needs to be deleted. (New user's first edit)
  • Keep:I just posted this because I believe the word should get out about Dr. David Harrison. The man is a genius and through this page I hope to express his research which, IMO, is on par with Einstein. SinghaDog
  • Delete — pretty nearly speediable, in fact. Nonsense vanity article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not speediable under A7, as the article does assert significance. Given the absence of even one relevant Google result, however, the significance is false, and hence my vote. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax/vanity/attack. No verifiable claim to notability. The name is too common to figure out if this is supposed to refer to some actual David C. Harrison, but the details are certainly bogus. Ilmari Karonen 21:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - note continuing bizarre edits by same person. Same poster also started an article on "David Harrison" which was deleted and went on about "wenches" too. --MacRusgail 12:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: here is verification for the water papers David C Harrison Water Papers as for the university, alhtough i have never hear of it, Wenchumi is an Ojibwe word meaning "place of hope." Although some of this appears to be somewhat shakey, on the whole i believe it is valid. Pilatus 17:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (Note: Edit was by IP 64.83.234.164, not User:Pilatus; check their contributions logs.)[reply]
    The person in the papers seems fairly clearly not to be the person about whom the article speaks (not, for example, "the father of Canadian physics"), though I've no doubt that these papers were part of the jigsaw-creation of the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: i am the David C Harrison referred to in the article. While i don't think i am the "father of canadian physics" i have been called that jokingly by my students. Another one of the common jokes on campus is that i am the "Wench" of Canada, referring to my inability to pronounce Wenchumi. Thank you --DavidCHarrison 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC) University of Wenchumi (New user's first edit)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax article; the link given is to a person who is not a physicist and has no relation to Canada. There is no such thing as the "Northern Territories" in Canada, nor is there a town of "Wenchumi" in the Northwest Territories, let alone a university there. The page author and "DavidCHarrison"'s only edits are to this article. -- Corvus 01:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an attempt to decive people --Cloveious 22:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- My name is Dr. John Dwyer, PhD. I am a colleague and admirer of Dr. Harrison. The work and knowledge he has contributed to our school is amazing. He deserves some notification. (Note: IP 64.83.234.164 again.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in Gaming[edit]

Not notable MS Paint created web comic. feydey 16:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — non-notable, amateurish-looking webcomic (and delete the image too). Andrew pmk | Talk 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa says they just get a few hundred views per month. -- SCZenz 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer Comes Down[edit]

Non notable band vanity; does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements. Madchester 16:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I looked this up on Google, but it was hard to sort out the results. There were a few hits for the band, but as for notability, I'm not convinced one way or the other. --MacRusgail 16:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The author admitted that the band's first release is coming out next year and the site's guidelines recommend that bands should have at least 2 releases under their belt for inclusion. --Madchester 16:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- When your biggest claim to fame is that you live in the same town that Black Sabbath formed in, your non notable, I looked up "Hammer Comes Down" on Google and the first two pages of results were about court decisions. Ben D. 16:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. -- Where an underground metal band Ben D. you brainless fuck wit, at least read the content which was formely posted, and please make sure rules that are set for bands are clearly set out! (Unsigned by User:Hammercomesdown - now try and tell me that metal isn't a bad influence)
I did read the content that was formerly posted, it led me to the conclusion that the band was non notable. Ben D. 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above user (User:Hammercomesdown) has been indefinitely blocked for personal attacks.Linuxbeak | Talk 16:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Robert 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet Apollo[edit]

Also Image:Chevroletapollo.jpg

This article was created by Willy vandal Express (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has a curious contribution history: offering commentary on other vandal socks, creating this article, adding it to Articles for deletion on September 16 without actually creating an Afd page (like this one). This needs to be researched as a possible hoax. -- Curps 16:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this site [29] seems to verify there is such a car. I'm on my way out, so I can't verify the information in the article right now. If someone else doesn't, I'll do it later this afternoon. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Chevrolet Nova. Here's the deal. There was a car by Buick named the Apollo, which was a rebadging of the Chevrolet Nova. See the chevy nova article for a reference on this. Also note that a google search for "chevrolet apollo" -wikipedia [30] turns out very few results, while "buick apollo" [31] turns out many more. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a real car. (The image is probably a copyvio however.) Andrew pmk | Talk 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain -- I really don't know... but, it seems to me that this car says between 1989 and 1997... while the Chevy Appollo I've seen is from 73 to 75 as per that website and other things and looks different from the image. I don't really know... but, hoax definitely seems likely to me as of now. I am putting the image up with {{nosource}} so it should be gone in 7 days if no one sources it. gren グレン 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Merge into Holden Apollo with redirect. That seems to have the Google share: [keyword:%22holden%20apollo%22 9800 hits] with confirmation of the Camry link. Definitely needs cleanup, though. I can only find references to Australian sales (as I'd expect from a Holden). See also the Haynes manual here. — mendel ☎ 00:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems like the holden apollo was a re-badged Toyota. The article on Chevy Apollo says, among other things it was manufactured by Chevy and Holden. Have you found any information to prove that Chevy manufactured a version of the Apollo with Holden? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't found anything that confirms that a 1990s Chevy Apollo existed. That's why I think this article, which talks about the 1990s Holden Apollo based on the Camry, should be moved to Holden Apollo, and the unverifiable bits removed. — mendel ☎ 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Holden Apollo. -- Apyule 07:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and don't merge, although the submitter's record makes me wonder if it's a copyvio). It does seem to be genuine. It seems GM released several cars under this name, based on a variety of different platforms. In addition to the Holden/Toyota thing, it was also based on the Chevy Nova (see Chevy_Nova#1971) - so I don't think there's a single vehicle-platform article we can sensibly merge'n'redirect to. Is there a naff cars wikiproject at whom we can chuck this problem? But delete the image - its redundant with images (of better provenance) that we already have. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Holden Apollo, the Chevy and Holden Apollo's clearly at least share the name. As the Holden page has no picture, I suggest using this picture on it. -Drdisque 22:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent Black[edit]

Unsigned band by article's admission MacRusgail 16:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manditory[edit]

Appears to self-promote a band. Their slim discography is either unavailable or in process, not likely a band who is self-listed as "legendary". 71.110.146.47 17:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaffle[edit]

A non-notable neologism. Ninety Google hits, of which several give a completely different definition. [32] [33] [34] Ashley Pomeroy 17:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an insignificant neologism, whatever the definition is :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless "widespread" regional use can be confirmed. (After Googling, I really want to know what "spaffle" has to do with mereology...) Ilmari Karonen 21:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified. --Apyule 07:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef and apparently a neologism based on the listed definition.--Isotope23 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SMS is in the dictionary now, abbreviations such as YHBT and HAND and LOL are widely recognised. I've heard of spaffle, it's a colloqualism. There's no reason why it shouldn't be here, given the context of today's society.Slimy earthworm 19:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Vancouverguy 18:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Putney Paper Company, Inc.[edit]

It looks like an ad. Alr 17:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree.--Hooperbloob 18:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pucci Petwear[edit]

Seems to be nothing but an advertisement for a non-notable company. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (just to make things clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided It's an ad, but they seem to get 54,000 Google hits. So I wonder (reluctantly) if it should just be cleaned up? Dlyons493 Talk 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad --JAranda | yeah 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. --fvw* 11:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was RfD (deleted). – Rich Farmbrough 20:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man Ure[edit]

Offensive nickname for Manchester United F.C., which it redirects to. Created by an anon user earlier this week, who has since gone on to vandalise Chelsea F.C. (I only found this gem after fixing the other vandalism). -- Arwel 18:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - ought to be listed on Redirects for Deletion. Rob Church Talk 18:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ye gods, there's another of these "...for deletion" pages? How long has that one been there? OK, listed there. -- Arwel 19:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 22:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liwiusz Ilasz[edit]

appears to be someone whose only claims to notability are that he owns a law firm and stands an exceedingly small chance (acccording to the article; no sources are offered for the "public polls" mentioned) of becoming the next President (presumably of Poland). He has a large number of Google hits, however they all seem to be in Polish. I'm placing this article on AfD in the hopes that someone who speaks Polish can confirm or deny this person's notability. No Vote. Tonywalton  | Talk 18:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hero 2.0[edit]

Discusses a single, highly specific gameplay element of a soon-to-be defunct online computer game. The discussion in the main Asheron's Call 2 article seems sufficient Ephemeral life 18:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Starblind. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Labern[edit]

A 14 year old legend? Also, Google doesn't throw up a lot of useful entries too...I'm afraid that I have to conclude that this boy is rather non-notable -- SoothingR 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moved to Three Men on the Bummel. Robert 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bummel[edit]

I doubt this word is notable enough by itself to warrant its own article. I can't find on Google that this word is used by anyone outside the context of the mentioned book or by its author. All in all, its just a dicdef with a quote. orioneight (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - orioneight (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Three Men on the Bummel. Or merge and redirect to Three Men in a Boat. Or merge and redirect to Jerome K. Jerome. I love that book, even more than Three Men in a Boat. Any cyclists here? I can't promise to clean it up immediately, but I think it's an article-worthy book. And I think Bummel should redirect to it until and unless anyone finds any need for disambiguation. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Three Men on the Bummel per above, add at least basic details about the book. (And link to it on Project Gutenberg.) Note: Bummel itself seems to be a German word, which Jerome borrowed in essentially its original sense. Ilmari Karonen 21:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, introduction to my print copy (1937 Everyman's) says "The title must be puzzling to many readers, for 'bummel' will not be found in English dictionaries." It's not in American Heritage. Merriam-Webster Unabridged has it only as a Scotch-derived word meaning "bumble." Jerome's book obviously did not popularize the word. The first American addition was entitled Three Men on Wheels. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven knows why, Tonywalton  | Talk 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's about a bicycle trip and bicycles were informally called "wheels." Actually it had occurred to me to suggest moving this to "Three Men" in hopes that a well-known move vandal would come along and finish the job. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a perfectly good German noun and associated verb (see the Leo dictionary entry for "Bummel". Merge to Jerome K. Jerome and Weak Keep this article as a redirect, going by the precedent of the Boot (disambiguation) page containing a mention of Das Boot. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the new content by Dpbsmith is a perfectly good article about the book Three Men on the Bummel, I HAVE BEEN BOLD and have moved the page. I hope I have not been too presumptuous. If people here want to continue to discuss the fate of the original page (Bummel), feel free to do so. Otherwise I believe this issue could now be closed. Ilmari Karonen 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have also removed the AfD notice from the moved page, since it would only serve to confuse readers. Ilmari Karonen 20:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unilluminati[edit]

I have gotten orders from the Wikipedia cabal that this article should be deleted. Thue | talk 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable group --Mysidia (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax + nonsense. And there is no Wikipedia cabal. I have been ordered to say that by the Wikipedia cabal :-/ CH (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Be afraid. Be very afraid. Joaquin Murietta 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN for the excellent one-line summary Ashibaka (tock) 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fnord. Ehm, sorry, delete. Ilmari Karonen 21:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AOUM. I mean Delete. Non-notable group. Unlike most secret societies, it is partially verifiable in that they have a website. I tried to join in order to verify their existence, but I must have answered a question incorrectly, or their Javascript isn't work properly or something as I got thrown into my email program with a blank message field and "to" = [email protected]. Webpage contains a copyvio image from "Angels and Demons." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should really be a speedy. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to Wiktionary, so DELETE. Robert 22:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Café noisette[edit]

  • Delete Dicdef. I've moved the information to Wiktionary. --Revolución (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Humble" Bob Shoudt[edit]

  • Delete non-notable "speed eater". --Revolución (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and please don't delete this AFD page again Snowspinner! --Revolución (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --Ashenai 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I just ate. :( --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --fvw* 11:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is interesting if we keep ncaa sports figures why not this he is a professional speedy eater Yuckfoo 19:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if verified I am willing to allow champions in even such minor "sports" to be considered notable -- but there need to be cited sources. DES (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (discounting sockpuppets). Robert 22:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mihopa[edit]

A 3 year old webhosting site with 75 users. Not notable. Thue | talk 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, exactly my thoughts. feydey 20:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on Guys. It is 170 or something and not 75 and since Wikipedia is the largest encyclopaedia on just about anything, it is not fair to delete this. It's your call though but I am against it.
  • Please do not delete it. Hey, it's one more thing to add to your encyclopedia. Atleast tell me what to change.
Just another thing to add to it, wikipedia should have a lot of things listed. It isn't harming anyone is it? Keep it.
  • Please keep it up.... it's the best free webhost I've ever found.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gw productions[edit]

Not notable movie production "company". No links to any homepages, nothing can be found with Google. Looks like they are making home-made movies etc. feydey 20:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy Very new user. Perhaps the article can be reposted when the production comany has some more success under its belt? Dlyons493 Talk 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (doen by Redwolf24. – Rich Farmbrough 23:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2048 Presidential Election[edit]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. 43 years from now is a long time from now; we can make an article when the subject becomes encyclopedic: how sure can we be that there actually will be such an election? There could be a constitutional ammendment to change the presidential term from 4 years to 5 years, for instance. A lot can happen in 50 years --Mysidia (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Worse case of crystal ball. We don't even have an article on the U.S. presidential election, 2016, why should we have an article on 2048? --Revolución (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Wolfpackfan72: How in the world did you find my artical so darn fast, I put it up 5 miniuts ago? And are you from france? Of cource, bw will have an election in 2048!
  • User:Wolfpackfan72: We have an artical up about 2008, what's the diffrence? Okay, so a couple of years, but this is not fictional, it really will happen. Scientists and theolagists speculate all the time about things that can't be proven.
    • 2048? Of course there's a slight chance that there might not be a 2008 election (nuclear winter, asteroid impact, etc), the chance that there won't be a 2048 election is exponentially higher. Of course, all that aside even, the difference is, as WP:NOT says, preparation is already underway for the 2008 Presidential election, and there has been much talk and discussion over it. I really hope you're not serious. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment. In accordance with WP:NOT. Plus, just curious, why would the 2048 Election be held in 2008? Am I missing something? –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wolfpackfan, the article would not be anything substantial for 43 years, it is not the same as an article like U.S. Presidential election, 2008. --Revolución (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Wolfpackfan72: I am very serious, Our country has been around for more than 200 years, In that time we have faced: Two wars w/ britan, a civl war, the KKK, the Nazis, the Japeniees, the USSR, Comuniist China, The Great depreession, a terroriset attack, and even Bill Clinton!
  • User:Wolfpackfan72: And you must really all be from France. Your acting like the USA will not live on forever, your just being silly.
  • Delete it seems to me more than the crystal ball argument, there is a notability concern There is simply nothing of note to say about this. I say delete because it can have no meaningful content. (Darn edit conflict, now I'm just a sheep voter :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (Oh, sorry. I'll move my remark after yours so I'll look like the sheep. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Referring to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I note that preparation for the event is not already in progress, therefore the present-day preparation for the event is not a verifiable or otherwise encyclopedic topic. There is not a large quantity of notable, verifiable speculation about the event, so speculation about the event is not a verifiable or otherwise encyclopedic topic. This article fits the description of "individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events..." which "are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." In this case, only generic information is' known about the item. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Wolfpackfan72: This is just silly, If I want to write an artical about somthing I know alot about I should be alowed to. And I'm sure other people are intrested as weel.
    • How the hell is it possible for you to "know alot about" an election in 2048? --Revolución (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Wolfpackfan72:I found it! The smoking gun! Evreyone, check the 2008 artical, now go back in the history to the earlyist entry. It was posted in MARCH 2004, when the "event was not in progress", no one complained then.
  • User:Wolfpackfan72:Oh thanks, I changed it to 2048:-)
  • User:Wolfpackfan72:I'm takeing a bath. And remember, VOTE MATTHEW OVERBY 2048 and 2056!
  • Strong delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and the author seems to be going crazy with the vanity in this AfD. --Idont Havaname 22:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Wolfpackfan72:I'm going to youth group
  • Delete - I have it on good information that, after the War of 2027 and the disasterous Flibbertygibbet of 2040, the U.S. will switch to off-year elections, so the nearest elections will be held in 2046 and 2050, respectively. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this gentle joke. Gtabary 22:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, silly. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk --JAranda | yeah 23:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the "key candidates" for the office will not even be born yet. Zach (Sound Off) 00:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree, the election is only 43 years (and one month) off. The youngest person to ever be president was Teddy Roosevelt, at 42. (Kennedy, at 43, was the youngest ever elected.) So, most of them have probably been born, and are working their way up through the ranks of the neighborhood playground. :) –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP (Unsigned, by User:Wolfpackfan72)
  • Delete. I'm not from France, but o, how I wish I were! Xoloz 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • French Delete per nom — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How? You were asking how could your article have been discovered so quickly?

Matthew, it's impossible to make a change to an article on Wikipedia without having it instantly show up on the "Recent Changes" list. And it's impossible to make a new article without having it instantly show up on the "New Articles" list. And it's impossible to make a change to an article without instantly having your name (or IP) show up in the article history, even if you didn't sign your name; that's how we know you're the one who tried to vote anonymously to keep the "2048 Presidential Election" article.

We keep track of these things, Matthew.

You're welcome to contribute more articles, but don't be silly, okay? DS 18:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Wolfpackfan72 19:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Overby hey, this is wolfpackfan72, I didn't try to not sign my name, I'm a fairly new user and I simply didn't know how to. also, I was not being silly, I think the artical was compleatly ligit, people seem to think that things that are a long time away can't be speculated on. It hurt my feelings to hear that you think I would ingage in vandelism. Please write back, however, you seem like a nice guy.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DragonflySixtyseven" Wolfpackfan72 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Signing your name Ah, hey. Sorry if I hurt your feelings, Matthew - I was trying to be friendly, but firm - and just so you know, it's a good idea to always sign your name when you leave a comment. You do that by typing Wolfpackfan72 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) - that's the "tilde" symbol, four times in a row. If you're a registered user, that creates your signature. If you have IRC, you can join channel #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net and ask for someone to help you out directly; I'd go there to see if I can help you out in person, but I'm a bit busy right now writing some stuff on a deadline. DS 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolfpackfan72" Wolfpackfan72 19:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. My vote probably isn't needed at this point but this one's simply too entertaining to not be a part of. 23skidoo 21:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am hearby withdrawing my artical in soupport of democracy. But let these words ring loud and clear:"I AM NOT A CROOK" also let me quote Howerd Dean I'n saying "YYYYEEEEAAAAGGGG" Sincerly, Wolfpackfan72 23:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After Nehemiah Scudder wins in the U.S. Presidential election, 2012 we don't have any elections until the 22nd century. Caerwine 03:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 19:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Fales[edit]

Clearly a hoax, there was no German Empire from 1978 to 1992 and other nonsense. Also ALL those redirects to that article need to be deleted: Special:Whatlinkshere/Jacob_Fales? feydey 20:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlighting[edit]

It's been several months since the first succesful deletion of this page. The Slate article notwithstanding, it is still not notable: I'd say it is a prime example of a hoax that fails the "will anyone care about this a year from now?" test. Therefore, I'm nominating the newer version of this page for deletion also. The original deletion discussion can be found here --Nandesuka 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear: I think this article should be deleted as both a neologism (for the term), and because the hoax itself was nonnotable. The fact that the Slate article itself gained traction from the earlier hoax Wikipedia article just adds an element of "unclean hands" to the whole charade. Nandesuka 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable. Not a perma-stub. Snowspinner 20:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greenlight. It looks like SomethingAwfulcruft, and it's blatantly self-referential. --Idont Havaname 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-referentiality is not a deletion criterion, and the major source is not Something Awful but Slate.com Snowspinner 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is notable enough. ~~ N (t/c) 17:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is notable enough and should not be erased Yuckfoo 19:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this is notable. I wouldn't call it self-referential to talk about Wikipedia if Wikipedia was involved in the event. To me, a self-reference is more along the lines of "this wikipedia article is about greenlighting" sort of thing. — Jesse's Girl | Talk 15:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jesse's Girl. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:14:23 Z
  • Delete for reasons given my Nandesuka. --Tabor 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not everything is notable, and this is no more notable than what I had for breakfast.![email protected] 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We've had this debate before, and it's stayed twice. Notable in Slate.com., as per Jesse's Girl and Snowspinner.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoCreate[edit]

Appears to be a slightly disguised form of promotional advertisement. The page has not been cleaned up since the tag was added back in April. WP:NOT advertising -> Delete. RJH 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; poorly disguised advertising. Bunchofgrapes 22:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To my mind, so clearly an adv that should have been speedied. Gtabary 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. Noisy | Talk 22:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination. Qaz (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weetabix Minis[edit]

Vanity. We do not need an article for the different cereal varieties Chris 73 Talk 21:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity? Not entirely. It's at least as much due to anal-retentive completism. :-/
On reflection, I (the author) think you have a valid point with respect to Weetabix Minis; I shouldn't have created a separate article. On this basis, *I* vote for deletion...
In the case of Fruit 'n Fibre, the article refers (or should refer if expanded) to a group of similar cereals. If it's felt that this is too inconsequential for Wikipedia, I'm willing to accept that. However, applying such standards, many of the cereal articles in the List_of_breakfast_cereals are *at least* as valid for deletion/consolidation (espec. ones referring to a specific variety of defunct cereal for example).
I'm not going to whine about this so long as there's a clear and consistent line drawn. To some extent, I was following the template of what was there already. On reflection, this was a bad idea.
And definitely get rid of the Weetabix Minis...
Fourohfour 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 01:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Weetabix Pilatus 01:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't this just go in Weetabix? Gamaliel 03:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have lots of cereal articles. They are completely harmless and the subject matter is known to millions. CalJW 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequately not-paper encyclopedic. -- Curps 05:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising should be paid for. --MacRusgail 13:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per CalJW Carioca 06:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with the other Breakfast cereals. NSR (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit 'n Fibre[edit]

Another cereal article. If vote is for deletion, do not forget the redirects. Chris 73 Talk 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Weetabix Minis for my views (as author) on this. As stated, this was intended as a generic article. I think *consistent* consolidation (with removal of insignificant facts/trivia, and appropriate headings) across all the cereal articles might be the best way forward (with separate articles remaining for the most important ones; e.g. Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies).
Fourohfour 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequately not-paper encyclopedic. -- Curps 05:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Curps. DS 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia shouldn't be advertising uninteresting products. Not without a decent history anyway. --MacRusgail 13:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we have lots of cereal articles. Carioca 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with the other Breakfast cereals. NSR (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Robert 22:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Buzz (SFU)[edit]

This doesn't really seem notable, and there is already an article on Simon Fraser University's newspaper The Peak. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not too sure why it isn't considered informative that there are business-specific student newsletters out there. I am an SFU student, and have had discussions with many students at other Canadian universities, who were all quite surprised and interested to hear that The Buzz exists. Also, how is it like an advertisement? All other Canadian student newspapers' entries seem to follow a similar structure. Keep 24.207.70.210 22:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)pkthree[reply]
    • Anonymous users don't get to vote. That being said, read it, it's very advertisement orientated and is no way in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. It's also not a newspaper, it's a newsletter that is sent out (as I recall) 3 times a year. That's hardly worth the space here. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I am anonymous no more. I am the one who created the entry. I based the style on The Peak's entry, which I see has also been marked as "advertisement" material. The Buzz prints monthly with a break during the exam periods, which would add up to 9 times a year, although I'm not sure why the fact that it is monthly should make it any less worthy. Honestly, The Buzz is a not-for-profit and isn't looking for fame or fortune by being listed on Wikipedia. We're just trying to show other students (and perhaps other Canadians in general) that business student newsletters/newspapers do exist. I'd definitely appreciate specific input on how to keep the entry as neutral; I've looked at the other entries under the Canadian Student Newspapers and really can't see why you have a specific beef with this one. Pkthree 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Robert 03:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton High School[edit]

Non notable. Gtabary 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose : end of AFD ? Gtabary 23:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Schools is not policy. It is not even a guideline. There is no policy that everything that "verifiably exists" is suitable for Wikipedia; on the contrary, WP:NOT notes explicitly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." There is no consensus about schools. Comments in this AfD should comment directly on this particular article and should give specific reasons why this particular article should or should not be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Am a little confused now. To my opinion, indeed, a fantastic amount of schools article are just there because schools do exists (like the door of my house for instance, just come and verify it), not much point. Thanks for underlying this Wikipedia:Schools page is not policy nor guideline. I was a little too enthusiastic imagining that WP had a definitive (though bad) solution to this recurrent tiring school acnea. My mistake.
With a school article I always imagine naively that it got written because of something worth of interest. Anythinkg like "such and such labour union got started by who and who, which is now world famous", or "this foreground scientist invented in that year the dehydrated water" or just something... Not happening often though. Maybe I should list my primary, secondary and third level schools ? Gtabary 00:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, established schools are far above the level of "indiscriminate information". Kappa 00:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another school article that would be speedied if it were about a person. Denni☯ 01:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But schools aren't people. They are constituted by many people, and remain in a fixed place for a substantial period of time, developing an importance to the community and history that far exceeds the capacity of one person's lifetime. No one uses the argument that "if this village were a person..."; to make that argument of schools is comparably absurd. I still don't know if I really think they are notable, but that analogy is seriously flawed. Xoloz 06:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not the slightest bit flawed. It is not the building which is so influential on the people who pass through it, it is the teachers who work within it. The school itself is just so much brick and drywall. Yet Mrs. Jones, who has been teaching thirty years, and has probably influenced over a thousand young lives, will never get an article here unless she sleeps with one of her students. I find it quite amusing how much importance you place on the role of the school in the community. As a former teacher, I can assure you that a school for most people is just a good place to leave their kids while they're at work. Most parents do not involve themselves at all in the goings-on of a school, and it is a real chore to find parents willing to come out and lend a hand. While there may be some ongoing attachment by high-school students to their alma mater, no such warm fuzzy feelings are felt by elementary school students after graduation. It was rare that I had students return to visit after they had moved on to grade seven. And even if all this was not the case, an article that says in its entirety that "XY School is in Armpit, Manitoba. It has 320 students and its colors are taupe and chartreuse" does nothing whatsoever to encapsulate the "importance to the community and history that far exceeds the capacity of one person's lifetime". In fact, it cheapens the school from a shaper of student lives to a historical post-it note. And if this is all that can be said about a school, maybe its influence really wasn't so great after all. As for the comparison of villages to people, I don't recall making that analogy, and in fact, a village is not a school. People live in villages much longer than they attend a school, and in many places in the world, they may spend their whole lives there. People also tend to participate more in village or town goings-on than they do school goings-on, even if it's nothing more than shopping and doing the laundry. Finally, I have never voted on principle against school articles. However, I expect a school article to do what every other article in Wikipedia is expected to do: say something. The vast majority of these school substubs stand open-mouthed and drooling, and should be put to a quick death before they bring on the ridicule they deserve. Denni☯ 23:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a worthwhile article about a high school. --rob 02:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generic, non-encyclopedic. Gamaliel 02:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's engage in some more "concensus-building"--Nicodemus75 03:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Which wiki project is the discussion at? AfD is not the place for the discussion. Vegaswikian 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. Continually nominating schools for AfD, which will inevitably survive the process is no way to have a "discussion"--Nicodemus75 18:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable and NPOV information of a school. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Need of expansion is not a valid reason to delete. Unfocused 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand if not Delete High School Stub --JAranda | yeah 03:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow to grow. 20+ school articles are added a day. We will eventually have an article on every school in the developed English speaking world. They do not get deleted. Nominating them for deletion is pointless and causes unproductive rancour so please don't nominate any more. CalJW 05:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per CalJW. Xoloz 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ho hum. Schools at AfD. I wonder why they bother. --Apyule 08:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 14:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all public schools. Gazpacho 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we add 20 school articles a day to wikipedia and never delete them so can we stop listing these now Yuckfoo 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm afraid we can't. As long as the balance of votes runs roughly fifty-fifty in favor of/opposed to deleting schools, there is no consensus, and it behooves those who believe these articles have no place in Wikipedia to keep trying. Just because they are not deleted does not mean we are obliged to stop trying; they are not deleted because a no-consensus vote defaults to a keep. Therefore, it is much, much easier to get an article kept than it is to get one deleted. Please do not feel so morally superior because your keep votes appear to be what is saving these articles. It's not - it's how the system works that is saving them. Denni☯ 00:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is though, the balance of votes doesn't normally end up at 50-50, it normally ends up with a fairly strong keep consensus. --Apyule 01:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • But do you consider that those that have argued for delete in the past have long ago lost interest in fighting against the 'keep at all costs' crowd? Those that condider them worthy of deletion, in general, have better things to do than fight for good school articles. What i really find amazing is that the communities that are represented in wikipedia rarely have a section on education. Those that create these stubs rarely link them to the relevant community or visa versa. If the keep crowd regard schools as the focal points of communitites why are they rarely mentioned in those articles?David D. (Talk) 03:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I have considered it. Deletion on Wikipedia is decided by those who choose to participate. If people don't say anything, we can't take their views into account. I can speculate that the reason that some school articles aren't well integrated into Wikipedia is that they are written by students who are new here. --Apyule 05:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • With regard to students who are new. This relates to one of the strongest argument I have seen for keeping schools (i don't remember where i first saw it now). The argument goes that a new contributor may feel comfortable writing about their school etc. It effectively gives them an immediate niche to experiment on creating articles, investigating the world of categories and templates. Even if these early contributions are less than ideal, if these contributors become more confident and contribute to more interesting articles then wikipedia definitely wins. David D. (Talk) 05:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not from what I've seen, and I've voted on a lot of them. For what it's worth, Delete this schoolcruft!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Whomever keeps nominating these valid High School articles apparently isn't checking the results. Anyway, I vote to keep all High School and up unless non-notability is strongly demonstrated. :) — RJH 19:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per rob. Carioca 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep this one, on the basis of whatlinksthere and its age, and the fact that it's a secondary school not a primary school. Some alumni would be nice though as proof that it's good. Dunc|☺ 22:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neoamericanist[edit]

nn journal which hasn't even published its first issue yet. 6 Google hits. nb: if it were kept, it should be at NeoAmericanist. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 19:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan matchett[edit]

Unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- if "the Australian Government has offered $25,000,000," this should be able to be verified or debunked. Qaz (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - outrageous hoax that may be an attack page--Porturology 07:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, unverifiable, likely hoax and possible attack. I asked for sources a week ago, and again two days later, and nothing has been provided. -Willmcw 10:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks very like an attack page. Delete. DS 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Alredy speedied I guess.. – Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle sobczak[edit]

Non-notable MC MasterChef 22:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 22:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Rockers[edit]

Non-existent subculture. Everything factual is already linked at anarcho-punk. The rest is ridiculously inaccurate. Most of the bands listed are psychobilly bands, which (and this is even emphasized on the psychobilly page) is a staunchly anti-political subgenre. I listen to most of those bands, and have never heard even a remotely pro-anarchist lyric from any of them. The rest are merely, as mentioned earlier, anarcho-punk bands. Inanechild 22:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Seems a terrible bit of unimportant fluff.

-DB

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Brothers. Revolution[edit]

Was originally planning on speedying but in regards to CSD better safe than sorry, this article is baseless internet speculation and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speculation, crystal-ball --Revolución (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination Qaz (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Reason: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Baseball Revolution. It is pure speculation. Revolution is right now a "codename" for the upcoming console system. --J. Nguyen 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While Revolution is a codename, it is the official codename. It may infact be the actual name of the console, and that may be likely (the Nintendo DS was the second codename, and the first announced codename, and became the name of the system. Yes, it's speculation to say that the name of the system will be the Revolution, it is likely speculation. Just like it's speculation to say that Bill Gates will eat tomorrow). In any case, Thinking a game will come out in this typoed name, is extremely unlikely ("Super Smash Bros. Revolution", and "Super Smash Brothers Revolution" are still too much speculation, I would vote delete on any of the threeMcKay 18:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculation. I'm pretty sure the system is going to be called the Revolution when it's released, but there's no evidence this game will be named anything like this, or that anything in the article is actually true. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until Nintendo release some actual info about the game. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would be fully for a comprehensive article on this page as soon as Nintendo releases another information on their new game system and on the new game so that we can make a good comprehensive article on the subject. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Rich Farmbrough 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed "in Abraham"[edit]

Dicdef; what's remaining should be part of Abraham or something like that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Abraham. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless redirect and useless merge. If offers a definition of a religious phrase - but whose definition in it? According to whom? No context and no references. --Doc (?) 23:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would change to merge or redirect if someone can explain why it should be. Stbalbach 01:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRich Farmbrough 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context and apparently unverifiable. If someone adds context (who uses this phrase, when, where, etc.) as well as cites some sources, I could be persuaded to change my vote.--Isotope23 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlabberMouth PR[edit]

Advertising. Created by User:Blabbermouthpr. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very much an ad Qaz (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad for a company that's not notable anyway. --W.marsh 00:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Apyule 08:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotion. feydey 11:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Its already gone. spedied I guess. – Rich Farmbrough 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lotsofcash4u.com[edit]

Not notable. User:Dratsab

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanganeesh[edit]

Self promotion by a non-notable person Tenbaset 23:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. All keep votes are by users with no contributions outside this AfD, making this a clear case of sockpuppetry. — JIP | Talk 11:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elazul's Pad[edit]

nn forum and IRC channel, article full of trivia only forum deinzens could possibly care about. Although there are 228,000 Google hits, there are only 22 unique hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


more content was to be added. I personally documented a large subsection of the board/irc channel's history. User:mushroomblue|(talk) 23:56, 2 October 2005 (MST)

  • Save. Please don't delete this entry. EP has a lot more to it than what meets the eye. More content is to be added, as well.
  • Save. How is this site any different than Zophar's Domain? It documents what ZD is. This wiki shows what EP is as of now, and will be updated as major events happen.
  • Delete. A typically awful article about a non-notable forum. Quale 04:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save. Leave it at least for a few weeks and see what it turns into. // TPC at oct 3 17:58:31 UTC 2005
  • Delete per Zoe. - orioneight (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bung lau[edit]

Neologism, doesn't google at all. Seems like just a word someone made up. Delete, don't move to wiktionary. Kappa 00:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --Apyule 08:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia/Wiktionary are not slang dictionaries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary is a slang dictionary, but this slang is not established. Kappa 11:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I agree. "Dude", "Nerf" and such words are acceptable, but this is not at any rate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Vsion 02:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonverifiable. mikka (t) 18:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. DS 22:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Party (USA)[edit]

Self-promotion: This "party" was created by the author. Web site listed in logo and previous versions of entry is inaccessible; Whois records indicate the domain's owner is the page's author. It'd be a nice page if the party existed, but it doesn't. Tetraminoe 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_2&oldid=1081093414"