Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

Purge server cache

October 21[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Дозор[edit]

Not notable web site, linkspam Delete abakharev 08:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.　Seems non-notable, advertising, no content, non-English name. Zero points.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  09:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Удалить linkspam (delete). Lupo 09:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're on this foreign language kick, 除掉 (delete). -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cuir a-mach/Redd oot (delete) --MacRusgail 09:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Стереть к чёртовой матери :), or Delete. KNewman 10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or translate. Molotov (talk)
    15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. mikka (t) 22:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen Sie es weil es ist ein unbemerkenswertiger Eintrag. Yeah, delete. - Sensor 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whakakore (delete) Grutness...wha? 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "a group of people that scanning the Web every day and indexing all important and interesting events"... I thought that was us! MCB 01:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • yIteq. De' ramqu'. (Delete, nonnotable.) --Wwwwolf 10:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Robert T | @ | C 23:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

افزایش کیفیت تصاویر, الماسواره ها, هيدروكراكينگ, کاهش مصرف سوخت, نانوتکنولوژی در فرایند هیدروکراکینگ, نانو فناوری چیست؟, نانودرکاهش مصرف سوخت, کا هش مصرف سوخت[edit]

One of a series of submissions in Farsi, uploaded on 8 October and listed on WP:PNT the same day.. Physchim62 05:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all articles in group referred to by nominator. Hopefully, this can be turned into a combined AFD (although I guess it's probably to late for that now) --rob 09:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all related AFDs, below. What part of "English Wikipedia" don't these folks understand? 23skidoo 13:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably all of it, if they only speak Farsi. Kappa 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or translate. Molotov (talk)
    15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: to answer the question in the edit summary, these articles come at the end of alphabetical listings, at least those produced by the MediaWiki software anyway! Physchim62 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: above comment refers to edit summary from this AfD, which was merged here.  BD2412 talk 20:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am going to combine these AfD's now, please hold further votes for a few minutes. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 20:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Combination done, vote on!  BD2412 talk
  • Delete all, by the way.  BD2412 talk 20:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the whole lot. I agree with everyone else. If it doesn't use English characters, it should be here. Upload 'em on Wikipedia Iran or something. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; I assume that the writer(s) did not realize that they were submitting the articles to the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia. - Sensor 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to appropriate wiki if possible, if not, delete. Saberwyn 05:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm opposed to transwiki. Nobody should put this, or anything, in the Farsi wikipedia, unless they're fluent in Farsi, and are capable of reading the text. The two-weeks on WP:PNT was for the purpose of finding such a person, who was able/willing to do something with the content (which could mean making an English version and/or putting it in the Farsi version). No such person was found, and now it's time to delete it. --rob 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • m:Transwiki disagrees with you. See its example. —Cryptic (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right it does disagree completely with me, and I completely disagree with it. We waste vastly to much effort trying save stuff that's hopeless, while we focus on deleting lots of beneficial contributions. It's bad enough we give it the two weeks and five days, but now it's gonna get even more time. We desperately need a speedy delete for this. But, I'll have to live with the way policy is, not how I want it to be, so I'll abstain. --rob 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or translate --Me or a Robin 11:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1136 Broadway[edit]

About as non-notable as it gets: "the coolest house in the Fargo Moorhead area". -- Mwanner | Talk 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nomination. Mwanner | Talk 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Housecruft. (Housecruft?) I'm pretty sure this was created as a joke, as much of the content is silly. Agree with nom: "About as non-notable as it gets." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fratcruft or something. feydey 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TECannon 09:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I would have speedied this. But delete, obviously. -R. fiend 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 copyvio by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"2/174th ADA BN"[edit]

This AfD Nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No vote. You can call me Al 19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, added db-copyvio also as it is a copyvio. feydey 22:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3GunPete[edit]

Band with no assertion of notability. Delete. -- SCZenz 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aashti[edit]

Orphan, Non-notable dicdef W.marsh 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. Doesn't seem notable. --MacRusgail 15:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Transwiki - dicdef. bogdan | Talk 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting period extended. No vote. Alphax τεχ 06:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever for? Last I looked, there was no quorum for afds, and this one is entirely noncontentious. —Cryptic (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. Foreign-language dictdef; of no use whatsoever to Wiktionary because it's transliterated. —Cryptic (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbaspour[edit]

Unverifiable. I can find no confirmation that the claims in the article are true... the only search results do not verify the claim, or point back to WP [1]. The only search for "Abbaspour prostitute" points back to WP. Seems unverifiable and thus doesn't warrant an article. W.marsh 19:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. I seem to remember a different name associated with that, although she undoubtedly had both a Persian name and a Greek name. MCB 02:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acccn[edit]

Delete as advertising or vanity? What would Jesus do? Eddie.willers 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The debate might be in the air about if churches are noteworthy enough for individual pages, but I'm throwing my vote in because of the advertising.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Freshgavin. Noteworthy churches only please. --MacRusgail 10:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - I could see an article on a church of historic significance, architectural distinction, or any number of other elements of notability, but this one doesn't cut it. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; therefore, keep.. – Alphax τεχ 06:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib[edit]

Delete. No claim to notability. He was someone’s son and he had a daughter. That’s the extent of the article: nothing more than genealogy. ♠DanMS 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely). I am changing the vote of my original nomination. The article has been somewhat expanded and claims of notability made for this person. However, the article needs to be cleaned up, referenced, and expanded, and the red links need to be filled in. ♠DanMS 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only notability I could find was that he is the uncle of Muhammad. -Haon 01:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no vote, but I suspect there's room for expansion for an uncle of Muhammed.  BD2412 talk 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Figures this close to the center of a major religion are always notable, even if they just get a line in the texts themselves. --Aquillion 04:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, AFAIK, from the Muslim point of view, all the relatives of Muhammed are notable - Skysmith 09:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 14:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Apparently he was the son of the grandfather of Muhammad. However, if that's absolutely all that can be said about him, it should be merged, probably into Shaiba ibn Hashim. I would support keeping if more information exists, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I said I would support keeping if more information could be found, and this has indeed happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:05, 21 October 2005
    • Change from delete to keep Great work J. V/M
      19:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Changing my vote per Bggoldie and the expansion of the article. Suggest everyone reconsider based on the new information. --JJay 03:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • M\e/r\g/e into Shaiba ibn Hashim, unless and until sufficient material is adduced to justify a separate article.  BD2412 talk 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, as Bggoldie has indicated an intent to expand this article, and has added material suggesting potential for much more.  BD2412 talk 22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not anything close to notable. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This article has been stubbified and there is a link provided to a narrative involving this individual. How can this be NN? Surely one of our Muslim Wikipedists can expand the stub. - Sensor 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. Notability is certainly established, and, if this is truly unexpandable, it can be later merged into Shaiba ibn Hashim. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (add another weak) There are so many traditions with family lines... in some ways it's almost like listing all of the names at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew... and might very well be un-expandable. However, we often keep pretty non-notable people and I think that he has a degree of importance. I don't think it should be deleted now, but I would never have created it. gren グレン 04:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that it's been made better, at least to a real stub. gren グレン 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Me or a Robin 10:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a chain of prophet Muhammad's relatives and a story going back to the prophet: Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim → Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib → Duba'ah and her home → story with the camel (seen in 3 islamic sites [2], [3] and a blog). I would rather expand the text to include the story in this or separate article. Do we know what is the moral of the story? We have to respect muslims' beliefs and let them to decide the importance of the episode. --

Bggoldie 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added two links to the article. I think it is worth expansion instead of deletion. -- Bggoldie 18:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMO the very convoluted and probably mostly mythological lineage of Mohammed would be better served in a single Genealogy of Mohammed article rather than 500 stubs of X was the son of Y and father of Z. If one of them did something more notable than simply being related to Mohammed we can still make an article about them. Lochness Monstah 22:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If "containing convoluted and probably mostly mythological lineage" is a criterion for deletion, we could very well axe the articles on the Pentateuch. This individual is no less notable to Muslims than, say, Esau is to the Christians - and Esau has a whole boatload of stuff on him here. - Sensor 04:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now it says "Originator of a movement for the suppression of violence and injustice, formed at Mecca, in order to put an end to the Sacrilegious War. Founder of the order of chivalry known as the Hilf al-fudul.". Kappa 22:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why not? He was an major figure in the life of one of the most important person in history. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep short but informative stub Alf melmac 10:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alamance Independent[edit]

Claims to be the "newspaper of Occupied Confederate Territory" inspired by Drudge. Looks more like a blog to me. Not sure if notable as such, but has Alexa ranking of 3,693,936.. JJay 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one of fourteen million cranksites, lacking current notability per Alexa and Google. Barno 19:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. DES (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Algerbraic Tomato[edit]

This is a joke. The growth patterns of the tomatoes in my garden indicate that this article should be deleted. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, votes are about evenly split between redirect and delete/keep. Rx StrangeLove 06:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Pi[edit]

Fraternity organization that just started at one college? Seems non-notable. --Mysidia (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search for "Universidad Central del Este" "Alpha Kappa Pi" turned up nothing. Plus, we don't even have an article on the university in DR (although we do have a stub on the one in Puerto Rico). Acetic'Acid 04:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't search for "Alfa Kappa Pi", as spelled in the first occurence in the article. It appears to me that the referenced fraternity is the first item on the Google list when you search that way. Unfocused 02:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 11:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alpha_Sigma_Phi. There was a fraternity by the name of Alpha Kappa Pi which merged with Alpha Sigma Phi in 1946. See [4] and the Alpha Sigma Phi article itself. That fact is far more notable than a one-chapter fraternity in the Dominican Republic. - Sensor 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Per Sensor. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab if the Dominican Rep. frat can be shown to exist, else Redir. Rich Farmbrough 22:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and expand. This is not a part of Alpha Sigma Phi, see www.alfakappapi.com. I can't imagine any good reason to delete this stub, and doing so will alienate the new contributor who created this. Unfocused 02:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then the title of the article should be changed to Alfa Kappa Phi since it is only located in a Spanish-speaking country and there's no need to transliterate f->ph. Do a redirect of Alpha Kappa Pi to Alfa Kappa Pi. Their site makes it seem that the fraternity is notable enough to keep.
  • Comment Correct spelling of article ("Alfa Kappa Pi") only turns up 104 hits on Google. If their website is all they have to represent themselves, chances are they are not notable. Acetic'Acid 03:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping in mind that it's in the Dominican Republic and not in English, I wouldn't expect many Google hits in the first place. Unfocused 04:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this is an English Encyclopedia. It's only common sense that we would use English sources to research our topics. Acetic'Acid 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't stop our coverage at the borders of countries where English is the primary language, even when sources are more difficult to find. See Masjid e Tooba and Wazir Mansion for examples of clearly important non-English topics where sources are notoriously difficult to source on the internet in English. Unfocused 06:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, Masjid e Tooba gets 964 Google hits and Wazir Mansion gets 1200 (1140 if you include the word 'Karachi'). Much higher than Alfa's 100 hits. Acetic'Acid 06:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Theses guys have'nt done anything significant. The Republican 03:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 06:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet Supes[edit]

Delete as advertising for a comic. Article written by comic's author - which makes this vanity as well. Eddie.willers 03:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bwithh 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio [[5]]. --JJay 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jim Krueger is an EXTREMELY notable writer, currently writing one of DC's top-selling titles, Justice. Copyvio has now been fixed, but subject is HIGHLY notable. Also, I see no evidence to support the claim of vanity. Snowspinner 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not copyvio, notable writer, and how the hell do you figure that the article's creator is the writer in question? -Sean Curtin 07:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for Sean Curtin. I can't comment on whether there was a copyvio in this article originally but as to the question of authorship, Mr Krueger (persumably it was he) kindly stated at the foot of a first-person article that it was Written by Jim Krueger, hence the AFD for vanity. Eddie.willers 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snowspinner. Unfocused 02:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratulations - 76 minutes later and the article would have been gone. :) Snowspinner 06:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was replace with the article at Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory. – Alphax τεχ 07:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpher-Bethe-Gamow Paper[edit]

Delete as joke...and a poor one at that. Eddie.willers 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article needs work, but it's a legitimate piece of physics folklore/history. Choess 03:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seminal paper on primordial nucleosynthesis, and generally referred to under the name. Pilatus 10:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Choess. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as genuine paper on the synthesis of matter in the very young universe. Pun was just a bad joke by George Gamow. I have explicitly added this to the article. Sliggy 12:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Choess - real-life occasionally comes up with jokes too Sam Vimes 13:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Famous enough for The Economist to mention it in Bethe's obit. The incident actually inspired Bethe to work on elaborating the theory. Perodicticus 13:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known landmark work in cosmology. -- Decumanus 14:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory Dlyons493 Talk 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a tricky one, in fact. The paper is known as the "αβγ paper"; the concept put forth in it is called "Big Bang nucleosynthesis" or "primordial nucleosynthesis". The article at Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory is much better, though. Move Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper, maybe. Pilatus 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have only ever heard/read this referred to as the "αβγ paper". I think a move Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory to Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper as per Pilatus would be best. Sliggy 15:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge per Choess. - Sensor 23:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anglostralian[edit]

It seems to be a made-up word. --Mysidia (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angry dragon[edit]

Delete as slang dicdef or possible neologism. Eddie.willers 03:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a slang dictionary.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another dicdef, how-to article on an obscure sex practice. --MacRusgail 10:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probably a non-existent sex practice too. The people who go round thinking these up don't get out much. —Morven 12:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Wiki-Hell with this nonsense!!! Ravings of misogynistic losers who loathe women because they've earned nothing but rejection.  BD2412 talk 21:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OhmyGodDelete!!!!!!!!!!!!!. This is beyond stupid. Sounds like something the author picked up from a porn site. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons! -- DS1953 talk 21:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons...AGAIN. What a stupid entry. Devotchka 23:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animacionerite[edit]

NN band. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They seem to be a genuinely notable Bulgarian alternative rock band. Bulgarian alternative rock may not be the biggest thing on the planet, but it is arguably underrepresented in Wikipedia. They are signed with AveNew Productions and their records are sold at [6]. Just because it's fringe interest doesn't mean it's not notable. The Land 17:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep Two singles released. Sound like Soul Coughing coughing (mp3). Added external and a wiki link. ∴ here…♠ 17:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two albums. Kappa 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:music as having completed two albums. They have appeared live on an MMTV awards program in Bulgaria, commenced a tour and released singles with videos see [7] so they are fairly notable on the Bulgarian scene. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Bully[edit]

Delete. Article is a duplicate of Ant Bully (2006 film). Eddie.willers 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-moose mat[edit]

Originial research big time. Molotov (talk)
16:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ummmm. Google pulls up a few credible-looking hits, the best of which I can see is Story from Alaskan CBS subsidiary. I think this is Keep, Strange but true. The Land 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added The Land's link to the article as a source. KeithD (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - a device that can save hundreds of lives not notable? you gotta be kidding me - Snowfalcon
  • Keep. What OR? --JJay 23:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to notable(ish), but should be expanded from dicdef. --MacRusgail 15:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consider moving to Electro-Mat, the proper name for this strange and interesting product. Unfocused 03:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Kennedy[edit]

NN on her own Gurubrahma 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - just noticed that the article on her brother, went through an unsuccessful afd as he was notable enough - he was the son of the president; he suffered from a disease of which people became more aware and so on. None of these reasons apply to Arabella as she was born in 1956, before Kennedy became president. --Gurubrahma 06:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Howcheng. Not independently notable. Agree with Gurubrahma. Barno 19:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sahasrahla 03:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archane[edit]

The article doesn't explain its subject, containing no verifiable information; at best it is an obscure curiosity which wouldn't seem to merit an article... --Mysidia (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neologism. Appears to be a dictionary entry, but neither dictionary.com nor Wiktionary have entries. Acetic'Acid 04:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism based on a spelling mistake. Froody.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN spelling mistake. --MacRusgail 09:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What’s next? List of misspelled words? ♠DanMS 13:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, alnog with List of misplet wurdz. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Arachne. Jkelly 18:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere. The definition given appears to be B.S. However, archane is apparently a Hindu term too, but is usually spelled archana. See [8], [9] and [10]. I don't know enough about Hinduism to give any further insight. - Sensor 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archisex[edit]

Delete as non-notable and too recent to establish notability. Yes, it really exists but garners very few google hits. Eddie.willers 03:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree with Eddie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sex and buildings? More intellectual than sex and cars maybe. --MacRusgail 10:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-Pormotion, Non-Notable & Silly - Bwfc 13:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MacRusgail. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"arkanoid unit"[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. This band has no releases. Joyous (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as an article with little context. Jkelly 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the Pharoahs[edit]

No real explanation of anything here. Could perhaps be a CSD because of that, but I decided to bring it here instead. As far as i can tell, anything that says "X is [unexplained relink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], [unexplained redlink], and [unexplained redlink]." is not an article. -R. fiend 18:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just tagged it with a db for "little or no context". Speedy delete. Jkelly 18:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing Animals[edit]

Delete. This reads like a class essay and is not encylopaedic. Is the article about animals? Is it about a book about those animals? Perhaps it's about the man who wrote the book about those animals. Will we ever know, especially as there are no quoted sources. Eddie.willers 03:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As is often the case with articles that look like essays, it appears to be a copyvio--in this case, from here. Tagged. --Aquillion 04:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. As per Aquillion.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obliterate!. This is a clear and present danger to the copyright law! The information was a copy and paste from a copyrighted website. E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. - Sensor 23:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio --Rogerd 03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Athalite[edit]

A patented material used here to advertize a brand of soldering iron. -R. fiend 17:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: borderline notability, plus the fact that is patented does not warrant deletion. It doesn't read as a _blatant_ advertisement either. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, according to our article here on patents, there have been well over 100,000 patents granted in the US alone. To me, that doesn't in itself warrant inclusion. As for not being an ad, well a single line whose sole purpose is to mention a minor consumer product more or less is an ad, whether it reads like one or not. Something needn't be dripping with praise to advertize. Ask any company that endorses NASCAR. -R. fiend 21:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I agree on your comment about advertisement, you also have to realise that the patent thing is used as an argument for deletion, which is not. The fact is, Wikipedia has articles on patented materials and one can even argue than an invention granted a patent may be notable enough just for being, well, an invention. As a side comment, the graph in the patent article shows patents granted per year in the U.S., so the total number of granted patents clearly exceeds 100,000 (and is in fact around a few million already). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 100,000 did seem awful low. I should read things more carefully. Anyway, I didn't mean to imply it being a patent was a reason for deletion, just that a patent is really all it says it is, and that being one of several million patents is not a claim of notability. Obviously we have articles on patented items (phonograph is certainly not going to show up as a redlink). -R. fiend 22:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Not much to merge. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentication and authorization[edit]

While it's true, when someone is talking about authentication and authorization they're not talking about Java -- this material doesn't belong in an article by this title. --Mysidia (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bart's Dog Gets An F[edit]

Delete as nonsensical jibberjabber that lacks encylopaedic merit. Eddie.willers 03:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Although there is "nonsensical jibberjabber", we can make the page more encyclopedic like all of the other The Simpsons episodes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article isn't primarily about the episode in question but a particular event within that episode. 'Cleanup' in this case would mean a total rewrite to bring it to the same standard as the others. Eddie.willers 04:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real episode of a real TV series. Needs a total rewrite, though. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 04:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. I also don't believe that Wikipedia should become cluttered up with the minutiae of several hundred Simpsons episodes. --MacRusgail 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article about that episode is acceptable, but that would require a complete rewriting. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Excellent rewriting... Keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Ifnord 13:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Wow. Please keep this excellent rewrite. Ifnord 23:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete who cares..nn.Gator1 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mainly because a debate on whether we should have articles on episodes is going on at the moment. That, and the "nonsensical jibberjabber" can be fixed without deletion. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now brought it up to the standard of other episode articles. I advise those of you who ask "who cares?" to take it to the discussion on all episode articles. (There is a link at the top of the afd log.) For now, though, there is no reason to delete this article. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment II. Thanks to Sonic Mew for an excellent rewrite (and fast too!) which brings this article up to scratch. I would now endorse a Strong Keep. Eddie.willers 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done Sonic Mew for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Simpsons episodes --JAranda | watz sup 19:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Punkmorten 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten Youngamerican 20:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to precedent of having articles about every episode of The Simpsons. Note that this precedent should not necessarily be expanded to all television series. --Metropolitan90 23:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CanadianCaesar 00:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90 -LtNOWIS 01:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems OK now --Me or a Robin 11:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with Simpsons episodes, nice clean up Sonic Mew. Alf melmac 10:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJust needs to be cleaned up a little. devotchkaDevotchka 21:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep rewrite, good information on notable subject. --BenjaminTsai 23:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basic mathematics[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is just incorrect and probably does the reader more harm than good.., containing such assertions as: Mathematics is a process which involves a string of integers or Every application of mathematics relies on the four basic operators of Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication and Division. Mathematics, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, and Division have their own articles, anyways. --Mysidia (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup it is an inherently notable article but needs work. Molotov (talk)
    04:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I started rewording it and cleaned up the definition but when I got to the sections I realized that they're already covered on their individual pages (and much better so) which was stated by the nominator. What's more is that it should really just redirect to Arithmetic or Elementary arithmetic, because that's the more correct name. I've edited it down to a (fairly) easy to read definition, but I don't really think that's even needed. Please check the history if you want to see the original.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is clearly arithmetic. If "basic mathematics" is actualyl commonly used to refer to arithmetic, then redirect. Otherwise, delete. JPD (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to elementary arithmetic or arithmetic; it clearly says "Basic mathematics is also known as Elementary arithmetic or simply Arithmetic" in the article, or something to that effect. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wrote that. The original article was quite a bit longer, and less clear before I cleaned it up.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elementary mathematics. A redirect to arithmetic would be misleading; calculating with numbers isn't doing mathematics. Pilatus 11:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per NSLE Marcus22 14:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elementary mathematics as per Pilatus. However, I note that that article is currently at sub-stub status. Capitalistroadster 17:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elementary mathematics. --Holderca1 18:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm.. would the redirect really be ideal? While the original article was discussing arithmetic, not basic mathematics -- both articles skip discussion of the most basic and fundamental ideas of them all; deductive reasoning -- if there's something it should redirect to, it's probably just Mathematics, which, of course, should say something about Elementary Mathematics, but Basic Mathematics seems like a much broader category ... --Mysidia (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Note: I did not delete this page. Friday did, without archiving the AfD. Acetic'Acid 04:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Jacobs[edit]

Obvious hoax, not funny enough for BJAODN. Chick Bowen 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 redirected to Zoophilia.  BD2412 talk 17:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bestality[edit]

Non encyclopedic and mispelled article that has useless info. An article with such a title - with correct spelling - exists. Molotov (talk)
16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont know if you look here, i'm normaly a user on a dif wiki, how ever, can you please inform the users of the page (While its under consideration) what the correct one is? I found no link to it on Sexual_fetishism other then what i added.
  • I've replaced the page with a redirect to Zoophilia, which is what Bestiality redirects to. No need for this to be on AfD. The Land 16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogfoo[edit]

This article is a definition of a neologism that does not have a widespread common usage, and is not of encyclopedic character. Thesquire 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Wiktionary. Delete — Wackymacs 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary won't take this. There's no such word. Uncle G 16:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of the "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 16:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Warren[edit]

Obvious vanity by a guy who doesn't know if he passed his bar exam yet. Note how is banner claim is founder of the Progressive Texan, another article up for deletion unsigned nomination by User:151.204.155.222

  • Delete. Going to law school and having a blog isn't much of a claim to fame. Friday (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per above. --W.marsh 23:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the best written vanity articles you'll ever see, but a vanity article nonetheless. I must say he does a good job of elevating rather meaning accomplishments into significant-sounding accolades. Here's hoping he'll pass his bar exam; he'll make a good lawyer.StarryEyes 11:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Vanity. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwave synchronization[edit]

All of this information is already at Electroencephalography Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 20:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 20:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while there is a bit of conceptual overlap, the subjects of the two articles are considerably different. --Mysidia (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Needs a lot of work. I'm no expert, but Mysidia does seem to have a point. Certain statements like Beta 1 can increase mental abilities, IQ, focus are incredibly simplified and misleading but it does seem to refer to a more specific issue.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 35[edit]

Just another stub about a box on wheels. Why write these articles? Silensor 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Duh, they are a piece of engineering, and a piece of engineering history. A Hymek is one of the Western Region's foray into hydraulic transmission, (normally diesel locomotives have electric transmission). Also, the Hymeks have quite a distinctive appearance so they are not a "box on wheels"; and we'll get a photograph, sometime. Technical details such as weight, tractive effort, etc, can also be added. There is enough to make a decent article including talking about the 4 preserved examples, liveries (originally green, later blue), etc, though it is a stub at the moment. Take a look at British Rail Class 50 for a better article. Dunc|☺ 16:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no justification to delete this article. If anything it needs expanding - see British Rail Class 86 for another good example of how it should eventually look. Our Phellap 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep verifiable, useful, interesting insight into the development of transport and engineering. chowells 17:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above arguments. Part of a series. Punkmorten 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please two wrongs do not make a right Yuckfoo 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schools are far more important and relevant to social history than wheeled metal boxes, however Wikipedia has more than sufficient capability to comprehensively document both, as they're all part of the sum total of human knowledge. Keep. --Centauri 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this box on wheels (even though it's not steam). Grutness...wha? 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep <sigh> agree with Yuckfoo that two wrongs do not make a right. However, Dunc's clear partisanship for these totally non-notable and useless stubs about crappy, uninteresting boxes on wheels that may or may not have "distinctive appearances" (gee, most schools have distinctive appearances) is completely disgusting.--Nicodemus75 01:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Dunc. MCB 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Dunc may have some issues with civility which need to be addressed [11] but that is not a valid reason to delete a perfectly fine stub about a notable type of locomotive. We can and should be able to coexist peacefully. Bahn Mi 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... as verifiable. Maybe they could open a school inside one and make it more notable(and before you flame me, that was a joke).--Isotope23 02:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to British Rail Class 35 On Wheels....just joking. Keep, of course. This looks like a bad faith nomination. -- Natalinasmpf 14:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Dunc. These machines are a part of British industrial history and are notable. Eddie.willers 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Railway engine types are all notable. This article is also part of a series of articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Silly nomination. Thatdog 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nn railcruft. --SPUI (talk) 08:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is a notable example of hydraulic transmission, mention it in the article about hydraulic transmission. If this is part of the history of a rail manufacturer, mention it in the article about that manufacturer. This isn't an encyclopedic subject unto itself, and if there's a series of articles, why not instead make a list or write an encyclopedic overview of the topic instead of listing each individual example? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Odd AFD, IMO. This woouldn't hapen to be related to schools being nominated for deletion, would it? Schools and locomotives/trains (which I know absolutely nothing about, except that I can never get one on time) are equally as notable as, for example, a benchwarmer playing in the football (soccer) non-leagues. SoLando (Talk) 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep - I am a former trainspotter and I still ahve a large model railway layout but I can't claim to be a fan of traincruft on Wikipedia. - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While there is an article here, is it not easier for someone to add to it and edit it than for someone to come along and write it all from scratch. Better to have a stub with a notice like "This is not up to standard, please improve" than to have nothing. I do not believe there are not photos and external links to be added with ease, also details of those (4No.?) that are preserved. AHEMSLTD 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Burn[edit]

There are no mentions of notable bands, making me think this is a label that doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC The Land 09:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merged. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Chat[edit]

Non-notable, transient. Merge with KINY. -- Just zis Guy, you know?

  • Comment: you can just merge it, you don't have to bring it to AfD. -- Kjkolb 12:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 G4 by OwenX. --GraemeL (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cedars maths[edit]

vanity Flapdragon 18:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete it was already speedy deleted yesterday and re-created chowells 18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4. Will tag as such. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (alife program)[edit]

Unverifiable because, as the author says, they don't want to give away any secrets. Contentless. —Cleared as filed. 22:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfinished programming projects lack the general appeal necessary for inclusion, especially when no details are given. --Numsgil 18:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Edwardian 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator --JoanneB 23:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos of Man[edit]

Not notable accoriddng to the guidelines at WP:MUSIC The Land 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Another band who may someday be notable. Not now though. The Land 16:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree. Does not comply with WP:MUSIC.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken-stabilizer[edit]

This is not real; Google finds zero relevant non-wikipedia hits Michael Z. 19:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—this is my request. —Michael Z. 2005-10-21 19:54 Z
  • Delete -- This article mentions that the stabilizer might be sodium phosphates and the Chicken McNuggets article states that chicken nuggets are held together with phosphate salts, so this article probably is not needed. I'm going to go with original research on this one. Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirecting to Jane Wyman which has this information. Rx StrangeLove 06:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Reagan[edit]

A premature kid who lived for a day Gurubrahma 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:NN - She lived for a day, claim to fame being that she is the daughter of Ronald Reagan. I doubt if the articlecan even be made a redirect to Ronald Reagan. --Gurubrahma 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ronald Reagan. Definitely notable as the short-lived daughter, but can't see any expansion happening here and it doesn't justify a separate article.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable on her own. --MacRusgail 10:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Ronald Reagan, as is commonly done with such people who are notable in the context of a famous person's life. —Morven 11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: copy information to Jane Wyman and redirect to Ronald Reagan. All information in this article is already in Ronald Reagan but for the fact that she lived only nine hours; that she was born 4 months prematurely may be mentioned in Jane Wyman. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the info is already in the Reagan article so no need --JAranda | watz sup 19:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cinque Schatz[edit]

Previously marked for speedy deletion, but I moved it here to AFD just in case someone can find sources to verify that this artist "has influenced artists on both coasts". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No real claims for notability. Associate is also a candidate for deletion. (Guilty by association?!1)  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 9 Google hits does not a notable artist make. MCB 01:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McGoohan[edit]

Fionn mac Cumhail's son was Oisín - this entry is incorrect and/or unverifiable. Ziggurat 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination Paul Cyr 02:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fie upon ye, for th'myths o' Erin fair are a thing o'beauty, and ney a matter fer triflin'.  BD2412 talk 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Irish spellings should perhaps be used anyway. --MacRusgail 09:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Fionn's son was indeed Oisín. This is obviously a crank entry; the only Google hit for "Conor McGoohan" is a link to this article via an Israeli blog. - Sensor 22:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge (3m, 2d). Actually, this is technically a "no consensus", however, given that nobody actually voted to keep, and 60% voted merge, I think that merging is the appropriate decision.--Scimitar parley 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corydon Central Vanguard[edit]

Obvious vanity article about a high school marching band. Might be notable if they had actually won something, but "state finalist" just isn't good enough for inclusion in an encylopedia.

  • Weak Merge into Indiana State School Music Association for now as a section until it can be put into the article about the High School that this band is a part of, since all schools in the universe are notable due to the School Wars. But SHRINK those pictures! Is it just me, or does it seem like there are more people in that band than than watching it? Perhaps it's the just the castle scaring everyone off, but ultimately I think it's photographic proof that this article can't exist on its own. Karmafist 00:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's the more viable solution, I think. We don't want to encourage vanity, and this is of absolutely no interest to anyone in the universe aside from maybe 20 people in Indiana. StarryEyes 11:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge per Karmafist. State finalist says something. But please lose the pictures completely; they're totally unnecessary. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per StarryEyes --redstucco 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article seems find to me. The pictures need to be smaller however. Infomation seems to up to date.
  • Keep and Merge - Although this article will only be interesting for a few people looking for obscure topics, what does Wikipedia have to lose by keeping this article? It is not negatively affecting the encloypedia, and is in fact making it a better information resource by being there. TDS (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coulrophobia (band)[edit]

Non notable band, does not meet WP:Music, non verifiable -- possibly a single relavent google hit [12]. And the page was vandalised for 5 months and no one noticed. chowells 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Memories[edit]

Nothing but advertising for a non-notable business. Already removed linkspam from the article. —Cleared as filed. 22:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Scrapbooking is pretty popular these days and this company is a major player in the market. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertising: "only available from ..."!!! --MacRusgail 16:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danese Cooper[edit]

This reads like vanity, though it's not. Here we have a person who "is an advocate of open-source software" (I advocate a bunch of things myself), is on the board of some organization, and works at Intel. Does this mean everyone get's in an encyclopedia? I don't see how this is encyclopedic. -R. fiend 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'd say she's not good enough for having a page. and even what sshe advocates it not pure.-- glnix |
  • Keep. I'd say she's notable enough with a proven impact on the IT industry, but I'm no insider. Being labelled as an "open source diva" by ZD-net also weighs on favour of keeping this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: despite Barno's comment below I wish to keep my vote unchanged since the ZD-net article was not the only argument behind my vote. Being board member at OSI and her work on OOo licensing are to be considered as well. Besides, and this may a bit of a fallacy, we have articles on the board members of the Wikimedia Foundation too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ZD-net label. Kappa 22:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: agreeing with Rune Welsh, I thank Barno for pointing out ZD Net's unreliability but it's been reported more widely than that (e.g. news.com.com so it forms part of the body of knowledge that people would want to be able to research. Kappa 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepwith verifiable sources such as ZD Net article see attached [13] and her membership of the Board of the Open Source Initiative makes her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ZDnet has in recent months published a number of articles (sometimes categorized as "commentary" instead of "news" in ways not obvious to casual readers) containing assertions that were verifiably untrue (disprovable with a couple of minutes of research) and apparently motivated by blatant commercial interests. They've had to publish retractions and apologies. I do not recommend treating a label in one of their columns or headlines as an authoritative source establishing notability. The OSI is notable but membership on its board doesn't confer notability. No vote pending more substantial evidence, but leaning toward delete per nomination. Barno 19:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this does not read like a vanity article she seems notable too Yuckfoo 20:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date and walnut loaf[edit]

Transwiki this article to Wikibooks, then delete from Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, traditional cake. Not a recipe, so there is nothing to transwiki. Kappa 17:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • <holds sealed envelope to his head>...Let me guess...it's a loaf made with dates and walnuts...<opens envelope>. It is! Delete. Nothing here. I suppose we'll be seeing cranberry, macadamia nut, and raisin cookies next. -R. fiend 17:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what sense is cranberry, macadamia nut, and raisin cookies a traditional food? Kappa 18:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Niz 19:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless article is expanded before the end of nomination period. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rune Welsh. Dicdef, and no real info other than the British thing. --MacRusgail 15:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's just remind ourselves what Wikipedia is about ... it's about there being somewhere where people can go to get access to the sum of human knowledge. My view on deletion proposals like this one is that if (a) somebody, somewhere, at some point, might want to find out about a particular topic, and (b) a Wikipedia article exists which has the potential to enable somebody to become more informed about that subject than they were before reading that article and (c) the subject matter doesn't sit better in one of the other Wikimedia projects, we shouldn't be deleting it. On this basis, there is enough in this article to warrant it being kept. There appears to be an element of "I didn't learn anything from this article, so no-one else could either" in some of the above comments. Put yourselves in the position of someone who knows absolutely nothing about cakes, who hears the phrase "Date and walnut loaf" for the first time, and looks it up in Wikipedia. What value would this article provide? First it would enable them to validate that such a cake does actually exist; without this article, for all they know, Date & Walnut loaf is as fictitious as "rhubarb and hazelnut tart" or "gooseberry and brazil nut pie". The article give details of a geographical area in which the cake is a traditional food, and in which it is still eaten. It also gives two pieces of information about the the cake's composition over and above what one could glean from the name. I make that five useful pieces of information in total. Add to that the links to recipes, and ... Wow! What a useful article!! But then I wrote it so I'm biased... SP-KP 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also tells me it's a kind of cake, not a kind of bread or meatloaf, which it might have been. Kappa 17:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And not forgetting the categorisation at the bottom, which will introduce our cake virgin to a whole new world of information about cakes. Delete? ... Pfffff!!!!! SP-KP 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair to SP-KP, I spent about 30 minutes searching for information to add to this article. A google search for "date and walnut loaf" -recipe -chopped gives 502 results, most of which just link to recipe pages. I can't find anything about the history of this cake, how it became a traditional British recipe, its popularity in various regions, etc. That is, I can't find anything that could reasonably be used to expand the article. I have no problem with stub articles, but they should have a potential for expansion; I can find no evidence that such information exists for this article. Mindmatrix 17:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a further note, I wanted this article transwikied because I think the information in this article should be salvaged, and I'm sure someone would be willing to add a recipe to go with it. Mindmatrix 17:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs to be expanded heavily though, as a stub it is close to useless "Date and Walnut Load" made with Dates and Walnuts. Y control 10:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Yes, as it stands currently, it is a bad article (actually, not really an article at all). Nevertheless, as Kappa points out, it's a traditional food, and as such, I am sure that quite a bit could be added to this article. Why do people make these? What time of year do they eat them? Do they keep them, or give them away as gifts (see also fruitcake)? Who made the first one? etc. (Also, if you can't find this kind of information online, that doesn't mean there's nothing at your local library.... Google is not the sum of all information.) --Jacquelyn Marie 02:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't trying to imply that google, or the internet, is the only repository of information. Rather, it was the most convenient way to search for information for me - not everyone has access to a decent library. I also wanted to show that I didn't just mindlessly nominate this; I did put in some effort to try and expand the article. Mindmatrix 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or delete. As it stands it's a dicdef. Pilatus 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Neurotically Yours. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 18:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Bennett[edit]

While the series she voices seems to pass notability muster, I don't think she does by association, or by any other means. This is her only voice work, and there's not even any verifiable info about her on this page. Vanity at worst, non notable at best. Delete Redirect, nothing really to merge.--InShaneee 04:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn +/- vanity. Ifnord 14:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - NOT vanity, article made by a UK anon user, she is an American. Also she's very well known online, millions watch the Flash animations with her voice. --Chaosfeary (Talk) 19:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay...so she's an american. Yes, the flash she's in IS popular, which is why it has its own article. However, I don't see how that makes her notable by association. --InShaneee 19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Neurotically Yours. - Sensor 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a noted actress, see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006914/ for more roles, Expand the page, she is know by millions and has done 18 films.
    • Comment - Are you sure they are the same? The IMDB actress's credits are all from the '60s, which would be odd for someone alleged to be the college roommate of a person born in 1976. -Colin Kimbrell 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, that vote's by User:68.96.215.118. This is the user's second edit. --InShaneee 03:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sensor -Colin Kimbrell 03:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotically Yours. Leave open for re-creation if she does anything notable outside of Neurotically Yours in future. --Billpg 11:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Neurotically Yours. as per Billpg --Jtalledo (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (see below). -R. fiend 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dept of Plant Sciences, University of Manchester[edit]

Universities are inherently notable, departments and institutes only when they have a particularly illustrious history or an outstanding reputation. The Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Manchester isn't particularly great. Pilatus 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do we know that for a fact? Keep and expand. - Sensor 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand Reyk 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some verifiable claim of notability (famous alumni / professors / discoveries) is made. Ziggurat 01:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'd say there's room for this in University of Manchester -Haon 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only confusion here is under what category is it not notable. If it a nn degree? Is it a nn faculty? Is it a nn janitorial staff? Who cares? Ifnord 02:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with University of Manchester as suggested by Haon FRS 03:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete depending on the amount of actual content. I don't think this dept deserves a page of its own, however it may be a notable section for the university. -- Malo 04:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess it's not a school in the sense we usually argue about, but it still falls under the rubric that all schools are notable.--Nicodemus75 05:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As university departments are worthy of being mentioned somewhere, it should be merged in some form, but it would only be clutter at the University of Manchester article. Therefore, keep, and merge later if the structure of the UoM article is changed or we get an article on the faculty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with University of Manchester --MacRusgail 09:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with "University of Manchester". *drew 11:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to U of M and add a section there listing its departments. Marskell 16:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete in accordance with CSD # A.3: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, 'See also' section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." I am marking the article as such. The Literate Engineer 17:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to speedy this because 1) Literate is right, this is textbook A3 (I'm assuming the keep voters didn't even read the article; I'm starting to see that more) and 2) it doesn't exist. As Pilatus pointed out, there is no such department (check their website if you don;t velieve me) so the speedy redirect I was going to do would be erroneous. -R. fiend 18:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Rana[edit]

Non-notable If verifiable, add as a footnote to the main article on Dipendra of Nepal (or the Crown Prince if such exists) - Just zis Guy, you know? 10:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can verify it, I've heard this story a few times, and it's a good one. If there was actually some info about the girlfriend (I mean ... if he killed his whole family over her, there's probably a reason. Was she really freakin' hot or something? ) then an article could be made here, but I've got a feeling that she not much more than a name, and this article just restates the story from Dipendra of Nepal.  freshgavin TALK   10:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Right now, the article does not have much information. However, it can be cleaned up and expanded - for example, she belongs to the royal family that ruled Nepal till 1951 and it was believed that the marriage could stabilise relations. Her mother is from an influential Indian royal family (Scindias). How she fled to India to escape media attention is an indicator of this. However, I'm perplexed that nothing about her after the shooting incident seems to be available in the public domain. --Gurubrahma 12:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without disputing said facts, does she have relevance per se or only in relation to the Prince? - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable royal girlfriend. Kappa 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I really don't find these notable and I had rejected a similart one. Molotov (talk)
    16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and expand.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 16:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she was the cause of the royal massacre. I have read about her in 2001, so there will be references available if someone cares to read the Times of India dated June 2001. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep short and informative stub. Alf melmac 10:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Quest[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Joyous (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 attack by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ducharme[edit]

No such mammal. I can only assume from the article text that this is an attack on someone named Ducharme? —Cleared as filed. 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-muscle[edit]

Advertising for an nn company. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Friday. --BorgHunter (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Francis[edit]

NN bio. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination Paul Cyr 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is a close call, and User:Iamnotanorange, who wrote the first unsigned keep vote, is a real user and not a sock puppet. But User:Muke makes convincing arguments for deletion. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eumeterate[edit]

Not suitable for Wikipedia (dictionary entry, and a neologism at that). Plastered on Wiktionary and another public-edit site as well in an attempt to promote it. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 18:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. feydey 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article admits that word is a neologism too. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This word is in usage in everyday speech, maybe not everywhere, but it is an incredibly useful word. I understand your skepticism, but there is not other word for "to idealize at a distance" and its popularity is growing based solely on the fact that there is no other word with this definition. It is especially in use in Blogs, Livejournals, Myspaces and other cybercommunity sites. The idea of Wikipedia is that it can pick up on new facts before they hit the encyclopedias or even newspapers. And so Keep, I say. Keep
    • Delete First off, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so no matter how needed the word may be, a dictionary definition of it doesn't merit an entry here. Your submission here was identical to what you submitted to Wiktionary and m-w.com's Open Dictionary: Wikipedia is for encyclopedia entries, not dictionary entries. Second, the principle of No Original Research discourages the promotion of neologisms in any case. Third, as already mentioned in response to the etymology you proferred at the RFV of this same entry as entered in Wiktionary, your invented word is remarkably poorly formed. Fourth, it is a fallacy to assume that the lack of any word familiar to you with this meaning makes your inventing it worthy of inclusion: English doesn't have a word for "people who have never heard of Michigan" but that doesn't make the invention of such a word worthy of entering into an encyclopedia by itself. Fifth, claims of its (common?) use in blogs are contradicted by a complete absence of search results for this word in Google Blog Search. Sixth, the page is given to be assumed as a social universal when all evidence given for its use is limited to three or four people in Massachusetts and Connecticut; thus, seventh, not in use outside of you and your circle of friends and therefore not an encyclopedic topic. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 07:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this word needed. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=_midsummer

http://www.livejournal.com/users/_midsummer/58062.html

  • Delete. neologism. (and I propose "Michignorant" for Muke.) Dystopos 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding snake[edit]

A news story that doesn't seem particularily notable. - Laur 15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think animals spontaneously exploding is an interesting subject and should be in an encyclopedia. The Land 15:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Private Butcher 16:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like exploding whale. Kappa 16:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial. Honbicot 16:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does contain useful information. Dan M 17:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable enough. violet/riga (t) 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May become a fine addition to the exploding animals series. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lovely little article. Punkmorten 20:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please exploding snakes are interesting and a good topic for an encyclopedia Yuckfoo 20:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. No disrespect to nom but I'd love to see this expanded (not exploded). --JJay 21:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thgis is verified, and seems notable enough to me. Ceritanly not your everyday occurance. DES (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into exploding animals Bwithh 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — another interesting and verifiable exploding animal... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who knew there was whole category for exploding animals? --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This was an amusing news story for a couple of days, coupled with a picture that made the rounds, but really, it is of no encyclopedic consequence or interest. MCB 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into [Everglades] as the python is a non-indigenous species introduced by careless pet owners. There is a battle being waged between gators and pythons in the 'glades right now for top position on the food chain. Rangers there have witnessed several run-ins between the preditors, and they score it at gators 3, pythons 2 (one draw). -PlainSight 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable, bizarre, ?Fortean event. --MacRusgail 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Lord of the Everglades: The Two Reptiles, I can hear the intro music now... Alf melmac 11:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blow it up, or at most, merge into exploding animals. If this is the only exploding-snake story, a mention in Everglades might be appropriate, although the exotic (in the ecological sense) status of the python there isn't very relevant to the case. Barno 19:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it helps build consensus, I would also agree to a merge of all exploding animals articles into exploding animals -- but to only merge this one seems kind of dumb, considering. In any case, the information should be around to use. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this fun, weird corner of Wikipedia. Unfocused 02:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Talbert[edit]

Non-notable, nonsense. Sorry for him not having made the burgers right, but this is of little interest for almost everyone in the world.

  • Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete" as A7 JoJan 14:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'News story' is from PR service to which anyone can contribute a story. Perodicticus 20:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think that this article should be deleted, I personally know George and he interests me a lot. Please don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.3.19 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 October 2005
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 21:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. There's no claim of notability here and we are talking about a 22-year-old who works at White Castle. --JJay 23:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Not notable to the point where it's ridiculous. Sorry about the burgers George but no one cares. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 19:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really a great guy. His wiki should last forever.!!! (unsigned comment by 207.250.62.206. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP and RENAME to Georgia State Route 120 Loop. — JIP | Talk 10:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia SR Loop 120[edit]

Not noteworthy. Most of the links in the article point to non-entries which are also nn. I don't even think it's worth a dicdef. Ifnord 13:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ggsearch[edit]

  • Keep it - Should be stripped from some of the descriptions. But its not that bad and dont think its on purpose. --217.121.119.88 03:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So try this: GGSearch is a toolbar that works independent of any browser and searches Google.

While it was created in 2002 by P.J.Kraaima it has Google's permission to search like it does since February 14, 2003 as one of the of the software tools that doesnt has to folow the Google API.

Due to its users it's available in many languages.

GGSearch Website

Template:compu-soft-stub Template:website-stub

So, less spam, but clear and to the point I think.


Malformed nomination, listing now. Flowerparty■ 09:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's really not any better. The sentence structures are ugly too. glocks out 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ggsearch article is really spam. It don't have much potential. glocks out 19:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 by Hall Monitor as A7, nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Frasier[edit]

  • Incomplete AfD nom from 10/20/2005. I'm completing nom, but I've Speedy tagged this as CSD:A7.--Isotope23 16:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Lets not just delete things that we disagree with from other user's pages. This is not an article.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grue/List of ethnic stereotypes[edit]

I realize this is on the guys user page, but a lot of the content could be construed as attacking, such as the claim that blacks are prone to venereal disease. This is just not appropriate for an encyclopedia as I see it. —Gaff ταλκ

  • Although I am nominating it, it is much for the purpose of seeing how the community feels about this article. I will hold off on voting for now.—Gaff ταλκ 02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'm not usually one for political correctness, but if Wikipedia's policy is 'no personal attacks', in my opinion this should go. Reyk 03:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He or she does not seem to find them to be true and I just can't wrap my head around deleting something like this from someones userpage. Youngamerican 03:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and that has nothing to do with how I feel about it. It takes a lot more cause than is under discussion here to delete a userspace page. --Aquillion 04:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an article; moving to MfD.  BD2412 talk 04:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, by the way - user space is user space, and gets much broader leeway for content.  BD2412 talk 04:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So its okay on a user page to say that Jews are "hated in almost every place in the world."—Gaff ταλκ 07:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone made that claim on the talk page for Judaism, it would stay there - this is not much different.  BD2412 talk 20:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's important to remember to not let your emotions get in the way of your judgment. This article is NPOV (notice how some positive stereotypes are included as well as the negative). Most importantly, this is not yet an article. Grue has every right to keep this in his user space. It's far from a personal attack. Acetic'Acid 04:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel this article may be useful to some people (for example if you want to count how many stereotypes are encountered in some movie), so I'm keeping it in my user space.  Grue  07:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list isn't a personal attack against any particular WP user (or any particular group either). It is just an insult catalog with the hope of being exhaustive. In this context, even the insults that might be directed at me are usefully listed. Xoloz 16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grue is not stating a personal belief in any of these stereotypes. Like it or not, stereotypes are part of life; there's nothing wrong with cataloguing them. This is a userpage, in any event. - Sensor 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep per everyone else - in fact, this would make a good article if appropriately sourced. ~~ N (t/c) 00:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it and close out the discussion. I nominated this mostly becuase I was not sure what the attitudes of WP would be. Clearly its a keeper.—Gaff ταλκ 01:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit. I also believe that it is useful for some to see these entries. I like that it is so comprehensive in covering so many different groups. However, it does need to be edited, both for content and grammar/spelling/etc. - User:Sorria2000 26 October 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HAND[edit]

Non-notable band keepsleeping say what 20:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. their webpage gives a 2005 EP as the best they have done, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable Prashanthns 18:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haraline[edit]

Rambling, no context, unedited for a long period of time. Impaciente 22:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete incoherent and out of context, and highly POV (no sceptical input).--MacRusgail 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MacRusgail. -- Corvus 23:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hexagonal Town[edit]

Looks like a textbook case of original research - EurekaLott 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete, my bad, OR. Ex1st !


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Shit And the Buzz Beamers[edit]

Not noteworthy +/- vanity. Ifnord 01:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only five hits on Google. Does not meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Acetic'Acid 04:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Private Butcher 04:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Delete and the Not Notable. --JJay 19:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Damn, JJay stole my thunder. Wholly unnotable band and horribly written to boot. - Sensor 23:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not even in the same galaxy as notable and any band with 'Holy Shit' in their name should not have an article after them anyway. Delete this less than holy article. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, and stupidly written to boot. For example : Jamie Green-(guitar,kicked out for being a racist asshole--sure, he may have deserved it, but why does this belong in an entry on the band? Devotchka 00:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - copyvio. Thryduulf 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howard deVore[edit]

It's a copy-and-paste from http://stilyagi.org/cons/1999/howard.html, but there's no copyright notice on the site, so I didn't tag it as a speedy candidate. As written, it's not fit for inclusion, but if he's written a guide to science fiction awards, he might be notable enough. Abstain. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - as far as I know, a missing copyright notice does not mean that the information can be copied. So then it's a speedy, I'll tag it as such. --JoanneB 23:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a copyvio, but the source is not a "commercial content provider" and so this is not a speedy candidate. I have removed the speedy tag. I belive that this person has been at elast soemwhat notable in SF circles for many years, and if rewritten to avoid copyright problems, or if the source grants a GFDL release, this would be fine. Deal with through normal WP:CP procedure, Keep if copyright issues addressed. DES (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio which does not indicate the notability. I would be open to argument if there was a non-copyvio article or even a stub here. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howell's Finest[edit]

Vanity article, but can't be speedied under Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles because it's not about a person. AJR | Talk 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reason given in nomination. -- AJR | Talk 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination Paul Cyr 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good grief. - Sensor 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a vanity page. Devotchka 00:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. All "Do Not Delete" votes are obviously by forum insiders. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ICB2[edit]

Non-notable website. The site does not have enough traffic to generate an Alexa rating.[14] --Allen3 talk 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete - Our site is pretty well-known. The only problem with a listing on Wikipedia is that users like to post things on here to put down other users, so if we quit doing that, it wouldn't be such a problem...haha -sickmyduck
  • Do Not Delete - The article is actually a good depeiction of the ICB2 and to say that it's irrelevant on a site like Wikipedia is not only sheer stupidity, but it also happens to be very subjective. Does Wikipedia necessarily need articles on February 15th in rail transport or 205 Martha? No. This article has been marked for deletion because of a vendetta, pure and simple. No type of rational thought ever entered into the proposal that this article be deleted. - .Kiw.Da.Wabbit.
  • Do Not Delete - Fuckin' Hun bastards and their biases, First gas warfare, then the fucking holocaust, and now this. Kraut these buddy
  • Do Not Delete - ICB2 is a rebellion against the moderators and users of the site and company that is IGN. To delete this would show certain favoritism towards IGN and no equal oppertunity towards other small sites that are showing other options and facets of gaming industry.

Delete this and legal action can be taken. -djcodr

http://boards.icb2.com/ is the web address of the ICB2 (Short for Insider Community Board part deux), commonly referred to as "The Deuce". It is a forum where refugees from IGN's original Insider Community Board regularly post. Topics range from politics to s&m, which makes for an ideal place of varied discussion, criticism and opinions. There is usually a harsh "breaking in" of new users, which ultimately leads to them leaving angered if they haven't been blessed with a hard outer shell, or staying for the ride if they can take the initial ribbing. Many new users at first cannot comprehend what is the initial attraction of The Deuce, yet given a few weeks they too, become regulars. For the moment there are twelve people total who are in charge of keeping the peace, yet The Deuce is far from authoritarian, with Moderators, Managers and Administrators rarely taking their power into account.


The user count of The Deuce has been estimated to be in the thousands, yet the regular poster count whittles this down to the couple hundreds. Most users who secede from the original ICB rarely opt to go back, for said forum leaves one's freedom greatly severed, this being embodied in censorship, overly strict moderators, etc. ; This explains why the original ICB is slowly but surely dying, for where there once was a golden age of discussion, there it now lies a rotted corpse of its former self, averaging barely thirty or so posts a day.


There is said to be a certain rivalry between the ICB and The Deuce, with the ICB claiming Deucers to be vulgar and low in IQ count. The Deucers claim ICBers are prude ninny conformists, in their own right. Who knows if someday the two will join forces once again?

P.S. Don't buy anything from SaffronsGhost.

  • Delete, no indication of notability or significance, just another irrelevant-chat-site schism site. Supported only by meatpuppets with non-policy arguments and spurious legal threats. Barno 19:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Demographics of France. – Alphax τεχ 07:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration to France[edit]

There is a much, much better article at "Demographics of France", the author has not sourced the statistics, and also the writer's IP seems to be one that has been causing trouble as "Gary Mayne" MacRusgail 11:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Italian blog[edit]

Tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. Possibly spam, but possibly the start of an encyclopedic discussion of blogging as a communication technique in italy. Needs clanup and more encyclopedic tone, if kept. Abstain. DES (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. Not a speedy, but not a keeper, either. Maybe merge and redirect if anyone things the minor content belongs in Blog or elsehwere. MCB 01:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Must be rewritten, probably, but the topic is interesting; it can focus on its "regional" differences and briefly cite most important Italian blogs. (Disclaimer: I'm an Italian blogger. But I have no plan to use this article to spam about my blog, don't worry ;) ). --Cyclopia 21:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure that the "overcoming the communications monopoly" feature is unique enough to Italy to be broken out. --SarekOfVulcan 04:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson 5 Record Sales[edit]

Article fork written by anon after The Jackson 5 was cleaned up to move sales information (which I am not even sure should be included; the source for the album sales is not verifiable) to Jackson 5 discography. Delete, no merge. FuriousFreddy 17:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relisting on today's page for community input. Thryduulf 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. --FuriousFreddy 18:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 bio. --Carnildo 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Francis Hitchens[edit]

Seems to be a personal bio without notability established. Molotov (talk)
16:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - marked as such. No assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Gallagher[edit]

Vanity page (includes information that only that person is likely to know) about some completely random county councillor. Dunc|☺ 15:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created as part of a thorough cycle of pages providing information to citizens regarding elected officials in the state of New Jersey as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey. As part of expanding articles about New Jersey's 21 Counties, information regarding Freeholders has been added, including pages for individual members of the Board of Chosen Freeholders and the County Executive. Pages have been created for Bergen County, New Jersey Freeholders and have been created for five of seven of those in Passaic County, New Jersey. Pages for each municipality in each County will have information added regarding their local officials, including Freeholders (see Ringwood, New Jersey for an example). Pages have also been created for every one of the 40 members of the New Jersey Senate and are well underway for the 80 members of the New Jersey General Assembly. Freeholders are elected officials who serve in districts far larger than the 120 members of the New Jersey Legislature. This is NOT being done on a "completely random" basis and while it may be irrelevant to many, is of importance to every resident of New Jersey. Alansohn 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, important to citizens of New Jersey, and a project with plenty of Depth. Kappa 15:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • lol, how did I know - *know* - Kappa would vote to keep this ;) ? The Troll will be next. Anyway, to me this reads like a personal CV, complete with redolent hyperbole (vast public service, proud parent - as opposed to all those ashamed ones out there); I say Delete since this is a classic, straight up, textbook example of a vanity page and I highly doubt that such officials are important to every resident of New Jersey considering that barely a fifth of them bother to show up and vote in these elections (probably less). The remarks above from Alansohn are chilling insofar as it looks like waves of self-authored New-Jersey-Minor-Public-Officialdomcruft is coming down the pipeline. Draw the line here! Dottore So 16:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You *knew* I would vote keep because I vote keep on everything I consider the users would hope to be able to look up, which is what they are paying for. Kappa 16:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the reasons that "barely a fifth of them bother to show up and vote" for these "New-Jersey-Minor-Public-Officialdomcruft" is that residents don't know who they are. Every two-bit musician with a demo disk, every professional wrestler and bit-character on a TV show has a page. The bar ought to be set far higher in justifying deletion of a page for officials elected at this level. 31,940 registered voters in Passaic County -- more than any of the five other candidates -- voted in favor of Mr. Gallagher in the 2003 election. So far, one aggrieved Wikipedian has voted against. I'd say the people have spoken. Empower citizens instead of trying to keep them uninformed and then maybe they will show up at the next election. Alansohn 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Pilatus 16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Freeholder is just barely a notable enough position to merit an article. Andrew Levine 17:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No less important than a city councillor. - SimonP 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per contributor. Gallagher is Deputy Director, the second highest ranking elected official in a county of nearly 500,000 residents and served in the recent past as Director, the highest ranking official. This is not an isolated random page, but part of a coordinated and thorough effort to provide relevant information to New Jersey residents regarding their elected officials, with details already added to approximately 70 of the 566 pages of New Jersey's municipalities. Alansohn 18:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not allowed to vote twice!Dunc|☺ 18:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Previous statements were arguments in favor of retention. This was a formal vote to Keep. Alansohn 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You win or get appointed to muncipal position or higher, that's enough for me for at least a mention in a more general article. Just make this one sound a little less like a resume. What's this stuff about users having to pay for something, Kappa? Karmafist 20:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well technically donors pay for wikipedia, for the most part they form a subset of users. Kappa 04:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And most users donate zippo. Good to know the score, for a second there I thought it was recently decided at the recent Inclusionist's Secret Cabal Annual Meeting and Ice Cream Social that a push for user fees would be coming ;-) Karmafist 06:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa and Alansohn. Figure appears to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. Hall Monitor 22:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is an encyclopedia, not a who's who book. You should have to do something truly significant to be included. Wikipedia can cover less notable figures than other encyclopedias, but there's a limit. The number of similar people, when including the whole United States and those who have served in the past, is enormous. -- Kjkolb 05:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's Whos have criteria for inclusion of biographies just as Wikipedia does. Uncle G 16:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? I'd say he fails that criteria. -- Kjkolb 19:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's not dead yet... Kappa 04:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's wait until he's dead, then. -- Kjkolb 05:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wish we had more articles on elected officials, not fewer, since they have a substantial impact on people's daily lives. Also, I should note that the article is much improved after two rounds of cleanup. -Colin Kimbrell 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf melmac 10:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Kappa. Unfocused 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hermione1980 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kalani[edit]

non-notable Flapdragon 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - combo of a dicdef and an unverifiable person. Ziggurat 01:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with Ziggurat. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with all of you above! --MacRusgail 09:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Punx[edit]

non notable band does not meet WP:Music, unverifiable (just 4 google hits [15] most of which are nonsense). chowells 04:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While not a band it seems to be a non-notable collection of bands from the Kent (etc.) area.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity/NN punx. - Sensor 23:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killik(band)[edit]

No notability established in my opinion. Molotov (talk)
16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, high school teachers are not inherently notable. Thue | talk 20:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Warr[edit]

Article on a high school teacher incorrectly tagged as speedy. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Correctly tagged under A7 -- there are thousands of high school english teachers, no claim is made about the particular significance of this one. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Jareth. Being a high school teacher is not really a claim to significance in my opinion. --W.marsh 19:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Adema. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Kohls[edit]

Not noteworthy, +/- vanity. POV and dull to boot. Yes, yes, Trollerella - the last part is not a criteria for delete. I know. Just had to put it in there. Ifnord 02:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination Paul Cyr 02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for dullness. Also vanity, noteworthyness, etc. --Aquillion 04:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why you consider it vanity. Good article or not, it is about a living person in a notable band. Acetic'Acid 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Adema. Asserts notability, but should only be kept as an article if it can be wikified and expanded heavily. I think for now, it would be best just to redirect to his band's article. Acetic'Acid 04:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or weak redirect as above, mostly to discourage re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --JJay 19:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge. The guy doesn't need his own entry, or if he does, he needs to prove it by having more than a sentence of information. Devotchka 00:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Unfocused 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Limits of the Alps[edit]

The article is unnecessary, and is simply wrong. Stemonitis 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: I have now written Geography of the Alps, which includes a section on the Main chain of the Alps, and one on the Limits of the Alps. The latter at least, is now entirely superseded. --Stemonitis 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --Stemonitis 08:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was certainly a worthy topic in 1911, and while I'm not really interested, I'm sure some geologists are. I trust that you are right when you say the information is innacurate, and therefore should be updated to better reflect the current consensus. (What with all those plates and stuff.)  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - the article definitely needs to be cleaned up, too. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - the subject is encyclopedic enough, it's nice to know what other landforms (seas, plains, mountain ranges) surround the Alps. But it's not very accurate right now, and it should be integrated into a Geography of the Alps article (together with "Main chain...", and probably more). Markussep 10:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here that coudln't be in Alps. Title unlikely to be searched on. —Morven 11:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a trimmed version into the Alps article. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The updated Geography of the Alps is a good home for the material. Shouldn't delete outright, since title could be bookmarked or linked from hundreds of places around the net. Stan 13:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Stan. MCB 01:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article history to get rid of the 1911 rubbish and redirect to Geography of the Alps. Martg76 09:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies whose title contains a fraction or non-integer[edit]

Nothing against lists, but what's the point of this? Who would ever look this up? This is one of the most idiosyncratic non-topics I've ever seen. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 04:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless and unmaintainable. Friday (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete geeze this has even been cited as the most trivial list on WP. I don't see why the topic is notable. --W.marsh 05:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stupid and a half.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh, d'ya want some π? Delete. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. *drew 11:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can safely say this was not intended to be taken seriously. It is actually mildly amusing in a silly but harmless way, and might find a home along with the List of music acts whose names contain an adverb on the author's user page? Delete gently. Flapdragon 14:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Marskell 17:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. It isn't of any use to anybody Dan M 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about as rediculous as the music acts with adverbs article. --Holderca1 18:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More Listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 19:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Punkmorten 19:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, deadly listcruft. MCB 01:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think this is a lot better and more useful than List of music acts whose names contain an adverb. gren グレン 04:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although it might be a good idea to omit film titles that contain "half", as there are rather a lot of them. LeonWhite 04:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jtmichcock 05:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99/100ths Delete. "And" is a non-integer, therefore it is "a fraction or non-integer". Thus, many thousands of movies belong on this list. Barno 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useless trivia but amusing. --Tremont30 22:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 05:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of music acts whose names contain an adverb[edit]

Totally uninteresting and pointless list. Reyk 00:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination Reyk 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the ultimate in listcruft, simply begging to be deleted. Besides, “down” and “out” are not adverbs, they are prepositions. ♠DanMS 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not just pointless, but totally incorrect. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Man what's next? List of band names containing the letter 'V'? --W.marsh 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an attempt to win some kind of prize for the wierdest and most pointless list on Wikipedia. (Actually down and out are adverbs, but that's by the by.) Flapdragon 01:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Nom -Haon 01:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You have got to be kidding. From the editor who brought us List of movies whose title contains a fraction or non-integer. --Calton | Talk 02:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This guy has a mania for lists. Reyk 02:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe a list of music acts that involve instruments will be next...Karmafist 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But why isn't List of movies whose title contains a fraction or non-integer up for deletion? FRS 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means put it up. Reyk 03:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In general internet users rank integers over adverbs in their 'slighly interesting topics' box. But I agree that it's rediculous.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful. *drew 11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now this is getting silly. 23skidoo 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreal. Marskell 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator --Holderca1 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft at its worst. Punkmorten 19:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crufty cruft cruft. - Sensor 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very sad - eight bands on the list, and only two of them with real adverbs in their names! Grutness...wha? 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, erase, bleach eyeballs, ban user, sow salt in fields. MCB 00:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 01:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. gren グレン 03:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Someone was really bored when they created this. I'm trying count how many people care about articles of speech in band names. Delete the shear stupidity. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 18:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The list was my idea (see comments in Talk:List of movies whose title is eponymous with a character in it) but I never thought anyone would take it seriously and start an article. I'll stay out of the vote, but in the article's defense, not that it matters, all the adverbs are real adverbs contrary to the opinions of self-appointed grammar experts DanMS and Grutness, with the possible exception of Reel in Reel Big Fish, which is only a pun on an adverb. Let's keep on task; I really don't think the factual accuracy of the article is in question. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bad joke --Tremont30 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although all the words do appear to be adverbs. --TantalumTelluride 17:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 11:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people widely considered eccentric[edit]

Before anyone asks, yes, this is this articles 4th visit to VFD/AFD, which I assume is a record. the second trip can be found here, the third trip here, and apparently the first occurred before Wikipedia even had archiving for delete debates!. So, needless to say, this article has been around the block a few timesdue in large part to a few reasons. Despite this record, this article also probably is close to the record for the most reverts and the most NPOV notices (excluding George W. Bush, who's in a league of his own), corrected below, thanks Trollderella Karmafist 19:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who defines eccentricity? What is considered eccentric? And by who's authority and viewpoint? The closest I've known anyone ever coming to this would be in the DSM IV, but even those definitions are fairly generalized and subjective, which leads me to my next point.
  • Unlike most articles, this one could eventually become a breeding ground for WP:NPA violations. One user might consider another user "eccentric" or "wierd" and place them on there.
  • What defines "widely"? That's another fairly subjective term, "widely" to one person can be entirely different than "widely" to someone else. If anyone has a precedent on what that actually is (I have a viewpoint on my user page, but that's just a viewpoint and not binding towards anything other than that), please let me know.

At the very least, this article needs to be renamed, and drastically cleaned up, perhaps to the point of where it would need to become a Collaboration of the Week for it to be fixed. Otherwise, it'll probably be back here again and again, like it has in the past. I say let's Delete this, like many other unwiedly lists have been recently on AFD. Karmafist 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable and unmaintainable list —Wahoofive (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV listcruft.--Isotope23 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject seems notable and it survived three times already - this one should be no different. Possible cleanup because this article is capable of being here. Also, articles that should have been deleted a long time ago can be seen here (which I think is an embarassment). Why can't this article stay, and grow, and mature to add notable names at long last? I think this somewhat akeep with a possible cleanup Molotov (talk)
    16:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quality of the list is impressive and undermines the arguments for deletion. Honbicot 16:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. And it violates WP:WEASEL. Flowerparty■ 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - like the lists of best and worst films, the criteria on this list have evolved, and will continue to. It is actively maintained, and is a useful list. Trollderella 16:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What can I say? Surely they are notable.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cleaning this up to the standards of, say, the best and worst films lists would require everything to be sourced. This is really no more encyclopedic than, say, an article listing ugly people or stupid people. The truly legendarily eccentic ones should be merged into Eccentricity (behavior) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, eccentricity is subjective. Heck, Jesus could be considered an eccentric for his time. Andrew Levine 16:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he could have been, if any significant groups had tried to paint his unusual activities as "eccentric" rather than either "holy and righteous" or "dangerously subversive". But since none did, he doesn't belong on the "list of people widely considered eccentric". This list is not about people who are eccentric, it's about people who have been considered eccentric. Hence even if Jesus shares some traits with people on this list, it doesn't matter as long as few, if any, would associate him with eccentricity. This page is as much about popular opinion as about the people listed themselves; it would even be appropriate to list someone who a smear campaign tried to label as "eccentric", as long as that view has become a very dominant one. -Silence 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Necessarily POV. As noted, if you can source everything perhaps it would make more sense but as it stands there is no standard by which we can measure who does and doesn't belong. Genius and fame are often based in part on eccentricity. This is far to open-ended. Marskell 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently POV and culturally subjective. You can make the case that just about anyone is "widely considered eccentric", or that no one is, depending on what you make the context. Unmaintainable list. --W.marsh 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Starblind. Request if appropriate to retain contents in talk page archive of Eccentricity (behavior). It is a nice list, despite warrenting deletion. (oops ∴ here…♠ 18:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Inherently PoV, and unsourced so ti isn't even a recoprd of verifiable opnion elsewhere. Unmaintainable list. DES (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Look, I am widely considered eccentric, and you don't see me putting a bullet point for "Wikipedia User Anville" in this list, do you? 18.51.5.139 19:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Anville 19:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could say the same thing about almost hundreds of perfectly good lists on Wikipedia. Almost all Wikipedia lists have as an unstated policy that only people who are already noteworthy enough to have their own article on Wikipedia merit inclusion on the list. And as if that wasn't enough, you could easily interpret "widely considered" to partially indicate that the person needs to be widely known of before being widely considered. -Silence 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator; list is inherently subjective. Hall Monitor 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like my vote in the 3rd nomination POV --JAranda | watz sup 19:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POV. Time for this baby to go to sleep. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable, perpetually-POV list. --Carnildo 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV, unsourced, weaselly worded. Qwghlm 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep interesting and useful list. The fact that it's been voted on three times before and kept every time should be some indication. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I believe this is listcruft, and that the three prior decisions to keep were all erroneous. Let us now rectify that error. The Literate Engineer 00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary, inherently POV, preposterous listcruft. MCB 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' as POV, arbitrary list. How has this survived so long? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However radically change it or essentially start over. Limit it to people primarily known for their eccentricity rather than other things.--T. Anthony 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 05:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - in spite of being somewhat subjective, a list of eccentrics would be very useful, especially those who are self-identified or play on it. --MacRusgail 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The list may have some POV entrees in its currently, but that does not imply that the list is inherently POV, and if it's at all fixable, even if it would require months of work, it doesn't fit the standards for deletion. If you don't feel like putting the effort in to try to clean up the article and bring it up to standards, then don't bother; but don't prevent others from working on improving it by voting to delete it, unless you truly think that it's totally unsalvagable. The fact that a topic is disputable does not imply that it is impossible to write about; just because different people have conceptions of what is or isn't eccentric doesn't mean that there aren't people who are widely considered eccentric. Additionally, "eccentric" is hardly comparable to "list of fat people" or "list of stupid people", as it's a very specific term, is certainly not strictly pejorative, and, even if it isn't universally conceived of in a singular, exact way, it's still certainly very widely conceived of as having a certain set of noteworthy traits. -Silence 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, merging this article into eccentricity (behavior), even in the smallest of ways, also isn't a good idea, as the list would either dominate a very small article, or be trimmed down enormously without us having had time to discuss any changes—instead, let's trim this article down by removing all people on the list who aren't widely considered eccentric, and myabe someday, a few years down the line, when the list is at a managable level and the "eccentric behavior" article is several pages long, the two can be merged. Whether we shorten it or keep it at the same size, merging it into that eccentric behavior article would just make the page less useful for everyone. The fact that many people on the list specifically say in their article that they are widely considered eccentric, some even mentioning it in the opening paragraph(!), shows that claims of the term's total subjectivity are inconsistent with its usage throughout Wikipedia. -Silence 19:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply can be found here.
  • Keep - Seeing as how the list tells WHY they are considered eccentric, this page may not have complete NPOV, but still allows the reader to make up thier own minds. As it is, it is an interesting list and I for one found many interesting people in this list due to its existance. No harm in keeping it, but we lose something if we don't. Comic 19:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fix it, don't delete it. Andre (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silence and Andre. This article is definitely worthy of a fixing, but deletion would eliminate a valid article. Rarr 00:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree entirely with Rarr's description of this as a "valid article", Comic's statement that there is "no harm in keeping it, but we lose something if we don't," and it has nothing to do with the POV red herring. No one has yet said anything about why this list ever should have been started to begin with, and I do believe that list writers have to meet a burden of proof to show that. What purpose does putting ~150 people's names into a list serve? How can this list expand anyone's understanding of the concept of eccentricity, or expand someone's knowledge about any of the listed people? I contend that it cannot, and as such, the list makes no positive contribution to Wikipedia and two negative ones: it wastes server space and adds clutter, and worse, it furthers the false and detrimental attitude that vapid, unproductive, lists are permissible. I believe that this is a vapid, unproductive list, and will continue to do so until someone convinces me not that we can build an objective list of eccentrics, but that we should build such a list. Until such time, I strongly urge all editors to join me in calling for this entry's deletion. The Literate Engineer 01:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are several figures in history who are mostly noted for being eccentric. Several books and documentaries of eccentric people have been done. A list allows you to easily get to articles concerning such people without the same kind of groping a category or nothing would do. Now the list as it currently stands is poor, but you can strongly urge something without being right. If it is to be deleted I hope there is in least a category for eccentrics to replace it unless there is such a category already.--T. Anthony 02:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you've noticed, there is a Category:Notable eccentrics. However, don't rush off to add people to that category quite yet: if this deletion succeeds, that one will inevitably follow very quickly, as there's even more of a case for deleting the category than the article (i.e. the category is genuinely POV because it specifically says that the people listed are "eccentrics"; the page is not inherently POV, because it says "people widely considered eccentric": it's about POVs, it's not POVed itself). Personally, I'd support keeping both the category (though rename the category to "People widely considered eccentric"; the "noteworthy" is unnecessary, both because it's POV and because anyone noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia is already noteworthy enough to be in the category, hence redundant) and the list. Or, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd probably choose: the list. Why? Consider:
  1. Lists are maintained on a single page that anyone can easily monitor and check on the validity of each new addition to the page, while also ensuring that noone who belongs on the page gets removed. Categories, being based on edits to hundreds of distinct articles, are next to impossible to keep clean of bogus additions, especially when they get large. The easiest way to maintain the category would be to have both the category and the list, and simply once in a while go through the category with the list in hand and check to see if there's anyone on the list who's not on the category, or vice versa; then investigate why the discrepency exists, and correct it (either by removing the person from one or adding the person to the other).
  2. With a list, it's possible to list explanations next to each person to specify why they're considered eccentric. Even if you think that the current way the LoPWCE handles descriptions is poor (I certainly do), it's improvable and could eventually be quite valuable, whereas with a category there will never be an efficient way to explain why each person is on the list; it's nothing but a big alphabetized list of names, no more useful to someone not familiar with the individuals than if the page was total gibberish. If we had both the list and the category, the category could be the quick, easy, shorthand version of the list, providing the brief alphabetized archive, whereas the list would be more expansive and informative, providing further subdivisions to make exploration easier—whereas the category makes it easier to find a single person who you already know of and are looking for, which I'd say is less important than the list's role, because if you already know the guy's name you can just do a Search for him anyway. Descriptions, on the other hand, highlight perceived eccentric behavior, occupation, nationality, etc. and give people much more to work with.
  3. Criticize the current list if you want for not being cited (I added a NOR tag to it, incidentally, so we can get started on the long-term mission of adding sources for all the claims eventually), but keep in mind that it's at least eventually possible to have a fully-cited, expansive, high-quality article named "List of people widely considered eccentric", even if that's not a practical likelihood (though I think it is!). Categories make citation impossible; we just have to accept the people included as gospel, and centralizing debate over which people to include and which not to include will be nightmarish without an article page, as much of the discussion of who is and isn't "widely considered eccentric" will end up centering on the pages of the individual people described, making consistency a huge issue! Having both list and category gives us the best of both worlds, tying everything into a single article but also involving each individual article in the article by putting the category at the bottom of their pages. Win-win.
Anyway, sorry for the length of that. It's not like this article is a pet project of mine; I only recently stumbled onto it, and had just barely begun to make changes to it at all, when the AfD notice abruptly appeared after my first edit. Very disheartening, but the last few votes have given me a little hope that people are willing to give this article a fourth chance, and see what can be made of it. -Silence 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted item
And how is that relevant to how people should vote here? Whether a category, a list, or both should be used must be determined on a case-by-case basis, just as VfDs must. -Silence 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't, I probably should've put that on my talk page. I deleted it now.--T. Anthony 05:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I was just trying to make a point about the voting to keep things in perspective, not saying you had to delete it. But OK. -Silence 05:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely an enclopedia-appropriate reference for those specifically looking for eccentric characters, as this list, however fluid, has been very helpful to me in doing. Can anyone doubt that John Mytton or Stephen Tennant were not notable eccentrics (as in a person of "odd or unconventional behavior" [16])? And, fundamentally, I wouldn't have known of such delightful characters of history had it not been for this list! --Clapaucius* 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, must be my fourth keep vote on this article; for reasons, see previous VfDs. David | Talk 11:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per User:Silence. αγδεε (ε τ c) 09:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This had a potential to be quite weaselly, but right at the outset there is a good, clear paragraph about what "eccentric" means in this context. Well done, and frankly more careful and thorough than many other lists. If there are problems with a person or two on the list, well then fix the article; don't throw it away. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't delete comments or links to them. My goal with that statement was to move lengthy commentaries such as the ones above to a separate area where people who wish to get "the jist" of the conversation can see it without wading through an overflow of information. I was in the middle of writing the response, I was doing several other things, only to find that the link was gone. Karmafist 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete any comments or links to them, because the link wasn't going to a comment yet (and it wasn't clear that it was going to). You're the one who seemed to be about to delete my comment, by transfering it to another page where it would few people would read it and see the objections. I'm glad you didn't go ahead with that, and will certainly continue this discussion on the Talk page. The main reason for my edit was to restore the : and remove the
, though, to make it clearer what order the comments came in. I apologize for deleting the link before waiting to see what your plans were for it. Of course, speaking of comments that belong on the talk page.. why do these two have to be here? Oy. -Silence 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. The current name arose from the second deletion debate back in December 2004. A number of users have brought up concerns about the term "widely", and I agree. In the second debate. the original proposed name was "List of individuals who are famous for being widely considered to be eccentric". I cut it down to "List of people widely considered to be eccentric", and soon another user moved it to its current title, without the "to be" (which was a big Elements of Style blunder on my part :-) ). Looking back on the original title, I think the "famous" part was more important than the now-disputed "widely" part, mostly because I think it's a good idea to keep this to people famous for their eccentricity, perhaps among other things. So, how about this for a new title: List of people famous for being considered eccentric. Anyway, now I'll try to get off that tangent... We'll never agree on an absolute place to draw the line between "eccentric" and "normal", but I think most of the people on this list do belong here. Who would argue that, say, Howard Hughes isn't enough of a weirdo for this list? How about Norton I of the United States? Another important point: we're not asserting that the people on this list are eccentric, only that they're perceived as such. But isn't such a judgment unverifiable and subject to bias and original research? Not necessarily. How much dispute can there be, from contemporary accounts and elsewhere, that a lot of people think it's really, really weird to build a house for 38 years to confuse the spirits or spend years doing nothing but lying around in bed? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea, but I think that would cause new problems with many of the people on the list. For example, could we keep Albert Einstein on the list? He's famous for being eccentric, but only because he's already much for famous for other, unrelated things. Furthermore, it doesn't do anything at all to solve the main problem people have had with the current wording: that there's no solid, definite line to draw between "widely considered" and "not widely considered". I don't see a big problem with this myself, since I expect that only a few cases will have disputes over whether or not they're "widely considered" enough, and the rest will be pretty obvious one way or the other, but for those who do object on these grounds, adding "famous" has the exact same problem: where do you draw the line between "famous" and "not famous"? How "famous" do you have to be, and how "eccentric", and how "widely considered"? Personally, I think the ideal way to implement the concept of "people who are famous for being widely considered eccentric" vs. "famous people who are widely considered eccentric" is to keep the list where it is, but have some extra marker, like an asterisk, to denote people who are famous chiefly or entirely because of their eccentricity (as many on the list are), vs. famous historical figures who happen to also be widely considered eccentric. Of course, this line isn't the easiest one to draw in some situations either, since there are a lot of "kind of noteworthy" people who might have a Wikipedia article without their bizarre quirk, but are enormously more noteworthy for it. So.. tricky. -Silence 10:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what's the point? Yes, Sarah Winchester, Brian Wilson, Norton I, and Howard Hughes may well all be widely considered eccentrics, or famous for their eccentricity, or widely notable people who are or have been regarded as eccentric by a proportionally significant percentage of the population, or whatever you want to call the list. What I don't understand is what reason there is for putting all those people together in a list. Is it just for the amusement of people like Clapaucius? Or the convenience of his hypothetical researcher? Or Silence's claims that it's better than a category? Those aren't good enough for me. Besides, eccentricity is an encyclopedic concept, but that only justifies eccentricity. The listed people may be encyclopedic, but that only justifies their individual articles. Neither justifies the list. As far as I can tell, there is no reason that this list, in any form, by any title, with any inclusionary criteria, should remain on Wikipedia as an independent entry. The Literate Engineer 14:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not base my "keep" vote on the fact that it's better than a category; that argument came later, in response to T. Anthony finding that category and assuming that it would be used if this list was deleted we would simply switch to the category, when I believe that ideally we should use both. While I disagree with the people who have voted to delete this page, I at least understand those who have voted to delete it on the basis that it's unsalvageably biased (though it's not inherently biased, contrary to some votes above) or who think that it should be cut down to only a handful of people and merged into the eccentric behavior article. However, if you base your "strong delete" vote (the only one on the whole page so far) on the fact that you personally simply aren't interested in the topic (which your latest comments have led me to believe; do correct me if I am mistaken) and hence it's "listcruft" to you, I'd take issue with that (though of course you have the right to vote as you wish). The fact that you would never use a page like this doesn't mean that noone else would have a legitimate reason to research noteworthy people who have been considered eccentric throughout history. Additionally, the fact is, while perhaps most of the people on the list of eccentric people currently are also famous for something other than their perceived eccentricity, a large number aren't really noteworthy for anything (or much) other than their unusual, eccentric behavior or qualities. Those sorts of people would not be listed anywhere else on Wikipedia where a person would find their articles while casually browsing, and thus many high-quality, interesting, informative, useful articles on significant topics would almost never be read, even by people with a special interest in eccentrics. Lists and categories like this, disputable and hard to maintain though they may be, are beyond a shadow of a doubt useful to many people, as there are many people who are very interested in and study people throughout history who have defied social norms and established themselves as "eccentrics". And that is the purpose of this page. -Silence 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with eccentricity(behavior)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricalPisces (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 October 2005

  • Keep. The criteria are imprecise and the subject POV-breeding, but that's much outweighed by usefulness to those looking for a concise guide to eccentrics. Surely the problems are not a reason to delete. -R. S. Shaw 04:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LookOutCRM[edit]

Unwikified advertisement. No notability according to WP:CORP established. --S.K. 13:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, signed article Maltesedog 13:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 06:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lootering[edit]

Orphaned stub, dicdef, very low Google count (316 - and some of those are mirrors), not a word I've heard used outside the context of the film. No vote. mholland 15:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • D neologism. Fawcett5 15:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary entry for a fictional word used in only one movie. Ritchy 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef. --MacRusgail 15:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. Gary 17:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bauer v. Space Poetry[edit]

Mixture of vanity and original research. The concept of "space poetry" appears to be unverifiable and its sole author non-notable. --MarkSweep✍ 05:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Luke Bauer", Keep and rewrite "Space Poetry". "Space Poetry" article is in fact inaccurate. Such a genre exists, but it has been going for decades. It is not of recent origin. In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere that it had been started in the 30s, if not earlier. --MacRusgail 10:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both as per nom. I'm sure people were writing poems about space before Luke Bauer; heck, I've done it myself, even for publication ("Starsailor", California Poet, 1976, if anyone cares. :-)). But that does not make it a recognized genre any more than Tree poetry, House poetry, or Airplane poetry. MCB 01:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I believe space poetry is a kind of recognised genre, at least by the SF community. I have read about it in litcrit books on the genre. As for trees, some cultures do have special genres devoted to them. But I'm not going to make a case for tree poetry, even if the late great, Sorley MacLean wrote about them. --MacRusgail 15:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It seems the genre is sufficiently established to merit at least one anthology (Frontier of Going, ed. John Fairfax, Panther 1973), risible as the back jacket may be ("Space has always been too important to be left to the scientists...") It's also unclear to what extent the poems in fact deal with "the impossibility of writing poetry about space." Nonetheless, this suggests that a rewrite, not deletion, is the way to go. --User:J.Hartman 06:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the guy does something more than get one poem published. If there needs to be a "Space Poetry" article, it can be written separately. Devotchka 00:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mashel Mughal[edit]

Not noteworthy +/- vanity. Ifnord 02:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most likely vanity. Six hits on Google. Not notable. Acetic'Acid 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claims of notability.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Becoming less notable- I get 5 hits on google. --JJay 19:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails speedy A7. squell 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Alphax τεχ 07:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hartman[edit]

Vanity article for a Community School teacher. (Kind of cute though.)  freshgavin TALK   11:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavin TALK   11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion questionable no harm no foul (anon edit by 68.100.150.179 - --Pyroclastic 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Almost the same as the Joe Bloggs example in the policy WP:VAIN. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • please don't delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.145.242 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 October 2005
  • Delete or Speedy though he sounds like a nice guy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'No delete' who cares what Joe bloggs thinks anyway (anon edit by 68.100.150.179 - --Pyroclastic 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If only all students thought highly enough of their teachers to write an encylopedia article about them. --Holderca1 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepthis entry
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 21:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as (unintentional) vanity, but still cute. The kids deserve an A for effort. - Sensor 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above --Pyroclastic 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete does not apear to be a one-edit article. (anon edit by 68.100.150.179 - --Pyroclastic 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • No deletion pretty funny (anon edit by 68.100.150.179 - --Pyroclastic 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's not vain if you follow a strict interpratation of this Joe blogg fellow's rules (unsigned comment by 68.100.150.179. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 08:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • No reason to delete For saving it don't delete this article
  • Don't Delete This is an informative article about matthew hartman. I feel that we should be able to learn things about as many people as we can. By deleting this, you are crushing everything that wikipedia stands for.
  • Delete (reluctantly) - Aaaw, it's really touching. but sorry we can't have everybody writing about their teachers on Wikipedia. this is soo much nicer than the usual garbage though :-) --Madis<font="002299">o<font="000099">n 13:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be destroying the ideals that wikipedia is based on to delete this but I do think there should be some qualifications needed to edit intelectual articles.

  • For example, proof of ability to spell "intellectual"? Barno 19:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*I edited it so it's strictly factual; I respect you all and I can understand the frustration of looking up "hartman" and finding this, but now that it's based purely on fact (for GWer's I still saved the "chronicles") I hope you'll take it under consideration to keep it living. - J.M.


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael George Vohar[edit]

Incorrectly tagged as speedy, though probably borderline. A sweet memoriam, but no assertion of significance. Listing here. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is a very nice homage but there is absolutely no notability here (nor on google). Belongs on a memorial website --JJay 19:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's no assertion of significance, isn't this a speedy candidate under A7? --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
* I had tagged it as speedy because I didn't see the assertion. It is nicely done though. --JJay 22:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as CSD:A7; again, nothing resembling an assertion of notability. I am trying to learn restraint from Katefan0, but I can't see anything here. MCB 01:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 11:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MoroccoSecurityRulz[edit]

tagged for speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. There are over 60 google hits on this phrase, which does seem to be the alias of a hacker of some sort. However, I doubt whether this is notable enough to have an article -- if this is kept, it should be cleaned up. Weak delete -- unless notability is established, this should go. DES (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 60 hits isn't many for a hacker group. 24.17.48.241 18:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to fame. Ooo, they deface French websites. Those dastardly devils! (Psss. No one cares.) Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 19:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This AFD page was blanked. Relisting. No vote. Alphax τεχ 08:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NanoCT samples: Paper sample (Skyscan-2011), MicroCT samples: Mouse (SkyScan-1178), NanoCT samples: Carbon fibers with carbon matrix composite material (Skyscan-2011) and NanoCT samples: Glass fibers in epoxy matrix (Skyscan-2011)[edit]

None of these pages seem to do anything but show samples from microscope and x-ray scans. There is no encyclopedic value at all to any of these pages, so delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. FRS 03:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No vote, but in a weird way, I can see how this would be really useful to someone in the field - pics are too big to go in regular articles, and yet are interesting and probably notable. Must ponder on this one long and hard.  BD2412 talk 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. While not enclopedic in a traditional sense, Wikipedia needs to find a home for such items. --JahJah 08:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 14:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest that the creator donate these images to Commons. --DrTorstenHenning 17:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I agree that we should find a place for this info. Can't we move this to wikisource or such? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necron (band)[edit]

non notable band, does not meet WP:Music, unverifiable (just a single google hit as far as I can see [17]). chowells 10:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there is evidence they've been signed. As it stands, non-notable. And they have a MySpace site. The Land 10:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have to be signed in order to be "notable"? We can't self produce our albums? Who cares if we have a myspace site or not? In fact a lot of notable bands have myspace pages. We do have a real site, if you search on google for "necron+band" or "necron+chestertown" we will get results. We might be getting signed anyway to an indie DIY label. -Necron
    • Why do we have to be signed in order to be "notable"? is a very good question. Of course a band can be popular or influential without being signed, but we have to have some kind of proof that people take you seriously. Kappa 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Necron asked the good question about qualifications, we have a set of criteria called WP:music which outlines the criteria that we assess musical acts against such as albums, tours, chart performance, notable members, media profile and critical reception. As yet, we have no evidence to show that you meet any of these criteria except the possible release of a self-funded album. Capitalistroadster 23:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN per WP:Music. It seems that the Kent County, Maryland music scene has discovered Wikipedia; see also Kent Punx (also on AfD). - Sensor 23:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with New Trier High School. --Celestianpower háblame 09:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Trier News[edit]

Clearly a vanity page. Plus, non-notable. Plus, there is no content, only examples of texts they published. Definitly not encyclopedia material. Ritchy 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the 'award-winning for 50 years' claim can be substantiated then I'd suggest Keep - if we're looking at the best high-school newspaper in the USA it's notable. The New Trier High School article seems like such a claim might be plausible. I have however scrapped 98% of the article because it violated copyright. The Land 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. The college newspaper I work for is considered one of the top-5 in the United States, but it's not encyclopedic in and of itself. Same goes for this paper. FCYTravis 01:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per FCYTravis. Thryduulf 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with New Trier High School. No evidence presented that it is one of the top newspapers but worth a mention in the main article. Capitalistroadster 18:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting on today's page. Thryduulf 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ogza[edit]

Ogza! --Asparagus 04:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable... I can't even tell what it's a 'cruft' of. Might be purely made up for the article. Ogza! --W.marsh 05:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if it was Wikified it would have no context. It's not even an article, it's a narrative history.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. Not in context. --MacRusgail 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...per above reasons.--Isotope23 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons, and because it was created by Ogza... thus, vanity! :-) MCB 01:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was cute, but delete. Titoxd(?!?) 06:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only we can save the rainforests[edit]

Incorrectly taggda s speedy. Listing here. Sweet and well-meaning, but it is an essay. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Niz 18:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Perhaps merge facts with Amazon_rainforest or Deforestation if they the facts are not already present. -Andrew 20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awwwwww ... but yeah, delete as per nom. Perodicticus 21:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the majority of us are not bovered"? I'm being picky, but everything worth saving here is already covered in Rainforest, so yes, delete.  BD2412 talk 22:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete essay... but cut him some slack; assuming good faith it was written by a 12 year old. Not a bad effort at that.--Isotope23 02:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but as Isotope23 said..cut him some slack. Don't bite the newcomers. -- SoothingR 10:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. *Sniff* So cute... somebody give that kid a wikicookie... --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 10:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. Sorry, Ben. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

contained in Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Mini 09:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the use of redirection? Because i think one would not search for the article Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses and it is only a link from the main article.--Mini 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While 'opposition' is a more NPOV term, the article on 'persecution' is really about that (persecution of JW during WWII and/or in Soviet Union would hardly be fittingly described by the title "Opposition to...". There might also be yet another way to phrase the heading. BTW, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses is by far the more important article of the two as I see it. Soukie 14:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or figure out a way to merge. This is a good article. - Sensor 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses and Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses are separate topics, per Soukie. The two articles do contain some duplicate material, but not all opposition to the Jehovah's Witnesses can be rightly described as "persecution," and should not be labelled as such. That being said, Nazi persecution of Jehovah's witness, as well as the mob violence against the group in the US, should be treated under the "persecution" heading. Simple opposition, say on theological grounds, should be in the "opposition" article. The two articles will have to be worked on in tandem to cut back on duplicate material.--Kewp (t) 05:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good point re Nazis. These really are two different topics. "Persecution" is not always POV: it does actually happen sometimes! although the term is often mis-applied and used in a POV way.--Mais oui! 10:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Persecution article into Opposition article. There should definitely be an Opposition article, since, as was mentioned above, there are things that are Opposition that aren't Persecution (heck, I would probably say that there's a heck of a lot more regular Opposition than outright Persecution). Technically, stuff like Nazi Persecution is also Opposition, but, being a pretty specific and severe type of Opposition, also deserves its special mention. My original thought was that, if one had to go, merge them together as an Opposition article, since Opposition encompasses Persecution and considerably more. Maybe it's possible to keep both, but there's bound to be difficulty and subjectiveness in splitting the line between regular Opposition and Persecution (the Nazi stuff is obvious, but not everything involves the Nazis), assuming that we don't want half of each article to be the same as half of the other one. I still think the cleaner solution is to just merge everything into the Opposition article, and perhaps have a separate section in it just for things that can also be classified as Persecution if it's that important. This way, people aren't left to decide whether something should go in one of the articles, or the other article, or both articles, or what, there's just one article that contains everything related to Opposition.Tommstein 11:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kewp. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Persecution article into Opposition article keeping all relevant info. Opposition takes many forms (like efforts to delete information regarding opposition to JWs), persecution is more specific so it would make sense for it to be folded into the more general article. After merging a general cleanup and deletion of redundant material would be in order. --DannyMuse 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persecution and Opposition are two very different things. Xoloz 02:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Different topics --Rogerd 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are definitely different topics. A person may oppose the group's behavior due to what they perceive as a mistranslation of a bibical text, for example, and yet not persecute them. Information on opposition is relevant and valuable, but unlikely to be placed on a persecution page where it would be inappropriate. Precedence set by Opposition to Islam and Opposition to Mormonism. Frankly, I'd prefer to see all this content under Islam and Mormonism instead of as separate articles. --Condorman 04:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat's Hubba Hubba[edit]

first nom I am renominting this sock infected vfd 5keep/10delete again. still a nn resterant just to many out there --JAranda | watz sup 01:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep verifiable restaurant with references from the New York Times and ESPN making it notable enough for mineCapitalistroadster 01:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep decent article with verification. Chick Bowen 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it is still not notable. Marcus22 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, every medium sized town has a semi-famous restraunt. -- Kjkolb 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, media coverage. Wikipedia has space for one restaurant per medium-sized town. Kappa 16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Every restaurant gets reviewed; they don't get an encyclopedia entry. --JJay 19:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not every small-town restaurant gets noted by the Times and ESPN. Borderline notable, but still notable. - Sensor 23:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Bwithh 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and JJay. MCB 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is just one of the restaurants in my town that have gotten major media mentions and I can think of several more. I don't think any of them should have articles. -- Kjkolb 09:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article hyperlinks to several people independent of this restaurant writing about it. Google Web turns up a lot more. The WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 17:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep informative article. Enough media attention and per Ungle G. Alf melmac 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but clean it up, it's a mess. --devotchka Devotchka 22:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a bit of attention, but otherwise fine. Unfocused 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Biermacht the author here. This article is verifiable and encyclopedic. JAranda, how many times are you going to nominate this article for deletion? I am thinking you have some personal vendetta. Please read Wikipedia's Limitations on renomination for AfD because you have just violated it. You renominated it only 2 weeks after the administrators decided to keep it. Oh, and to JAranda, Marcus22, and all the "per-nom" and "nn" voters, once again, notablity is not a criterion for deletion.Biermacht 16:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatics (gnosticism)[edit]

There may be a point here, but the article establishes no context and comes off as pure nonsense.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or have someone make some sense of it. CambridgeBayWeather 11:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting looking title, dud article. --MacRusgail 11:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense and redundant. The text is a crummy rendition of Genesis 3:14-19. We already have perfectly fine articles on Gnosticism and Gnosticism_and_the_New_Testament which discuss pneumatics. ("[P]neumatic is the gnostic term for the class of people who were governed by their spiritual side and thus saved.") - Sensor 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sensor; perhaps it could be redirected to Gnosticism. Pneumatic is the Barnovian term for someone self-inflated with his own hot air to the point of believing himself to be a superior power tool. Barno 19:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Base[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic. Fictional subject, may be valid as a footnote in an article about E.E. Doc Smith or the Lensman series. {nom from User:Just zis Guy, you know? 13:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

  • Delete Reyk 12:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Along with Ultra Prime and Klovia. If someone's ambitious, Lensman's only about 10k at the moment. 24.17.48.241 13:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable fictional HQ, of interest to Lensman readers. Kappa 18:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Carnildo 22:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lensman stuff is def. notable. - Sensor 00:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No objection to a voluntary merge, but forcing such a thing will probably damage the Lensman article. Unfocused 02:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Texan[edit]

A blog that just started a couple weeks ago. No assertion of significance. Friday (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Edwardian 22:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet the criteria for websites. --JoanneB 23:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. No Alexa rank, doesn't meet criteria for websites/blogs. --W.marsh 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Hope the grammar on his blog is better than that in this entry. Devotchka 01:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent proponents/opponents of LASIK[edit]

Delete. Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the "current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not... [l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons." (emphasis mine) Does Wikipedia need another list?Edwardian 22:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (Comment updated 20:10, 26 October 2005)[reply]

  • Definitely not. Merge with LASIK and delete. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure the content is worth merging; it appears that the article exists only to promote the POV of the list's sole member. MCB 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, that sole member is notable enough to have a WP article.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with LASIK] and delete. I can't help but point out that this content was written by me, and that I had originally put it in the LASIK article. Another user took issue with this and we got into an edit war, and then he inappropriately moved the content to its own entry. I then made NUMEROUS attempts to get community input on the issue and it went completely ignored. The content is relevant and Kathy Griffin has been a VERY VOCAL opponent of the surgery; she is not simply expressing a POV, but she gives a detailed, FACTUAL account of her own experiences with the surgery including the fact that it left her partially blind. She has spoken out about it on numerous television shows, most notably Oprah. The section should be merged back into the LASIK article and should be left there for expansion of other notable and informed individuals including but not limited to scientists, doctors, or other noteworthy individuals (celebrity or otherwise) with informative, factual stances on the surgery in question. Pacian 07:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the LASIK article should present “informative, factual stances on the surgery”, and thus far it does. Anyone reviewing that article will see that the attention given to the potential drawbacks of LASIK in the discussion of complications, factors affecting surgery, and concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the procedure far outweighs any discussion of the procedure’s benefits. The blurb regarding Griffin, however, is NOT directly relevant to building a neutral and informative article on LASIK. It is indeed a fact that Griffin reports having a poor outcome and that she believes LASIK is an inherently bad procedure, but there are no specific facts about LASIK in Prominent proponents/opponents of LASIK or on her website.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states: “Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly.” It does not state that we need to build a compendium of everyone’s POV nor does it state that we need to do so with every "prominent" person’s POV. If we must present Griffin's POV, then put it in her article.Edwardian 04:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should not be a list, and the page should be deleted. If Kathy Griffin has made it to Oprah there may be a case for merging that back into the LASIK article. This does not seem to be a common occurrence, which is why I would recommend that every doctor who treats a celebrity should have the consent meeting witnessed by a lawyer and a confidentiality agreement signed by the patient at the same time :-). JFW | T@lk 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely irrelevant list --WS 23:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete comedy "list". Rd232 talk 18:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, apparently neither nominator nor anyone else wanted it deleted. Friday (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race of Jesus[edit]

I tried to create a notable article here, and wanted it to be a featured candidate, but apparently it just isn't good enough. Molotov (talk)
04:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't get it. Is there a reason this article should be deleted? What is it? Friday (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article's talk page might shed more light on what's going on, although not on why this page should be deleted. --Aquillion 04:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominator has no reason to delete it, is reacting to my comments at Talk:Race of Jesus. He created the article from scratch about 26 hours ago, and I thought it had a ton of potential, so I did some copyedits on it and mentioned two questions regarding the article's relationship with the other Jesus articles, but apparently Molotov was just looking for praise at the time, not any sort of debate. We're discussing it in our Talk pages currently. -Silence 04:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried my best, article should be kept My action was out of anger and despararity. But I am not a vandal, nor was I looking for praise particularly. BUt I am very sick of debating all the time - I have tried my best on everything here, so naturally I am sick of tug-of-war.Molotov (talk)
      04:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racial category[edit]

Page has been deleted previously, and since its recreation has contained nothing but POV rants Bobstay 12:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect; the current form of the article is a dictdef. Redirect to Race, a featured article. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Line 2 of Race links to racial category. Is it supposed to refer to the sort of bureaucratic taxonomy you get on census forms with boxes for "white", "black (African)", "Asian" etc.? - mholland 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe protect for a while if deleted material keeps cropping up. Hopefully a proper article will eventually be recreated. Don't redirect as per mholland's comment. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Fenlon[edit]

No relevant Google hits. Information on chinchilla seems to contradict this article. I smell a hoax. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Fallsview[edit]

Advertising blurb for hotel. Seems like a nice joint, but nothing makes it notable. JJay 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • picture is pretty cool, lots of weird reflections in the windows. --JJay 21:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ronnotel 21:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this hotel, or merge into the local municipal article if you can't stand it being a separate article. Being that close to Nigara falls is pretty notable. Unfocused 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've toned down the language so it doesn't read like an ad anymore. Unfocused 02:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Thryduulf 17:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safety standards[edit]

POV (and if it wasn't it would merely be duplicating other pages) Just zis Guy, you know? 10:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original POV stuff deleted pending AfD decision. This page could serve as a placeholder to link to a list of various safety standards, but since the page Safety already fills the primary requirement and individual standards are more appropriately linked to their subject pages (such as road safety) even this would appear to be moot. The page itself seems in the main to be one user's reaction against the neutrality of several bike and bike safety pages.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satans Anus[edit]

non notable band does not meet WP:Music, unverifiable (barely any (if any) relavent google hits [18]). chowells 04:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom... not notable. I am not surprised that Annapolis, Maryland is the depths of hell though. --W.marsh 05:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Their logo is ugly. Err... I mean they're non-notable.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't read their logo either. --MacRusgail 10:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK!
  1. Annapolis is the depths of hell, anyone who has been there will know
  2. The logo is "ugly" because its black metal, and grim and kvlt and necro
  3. The requirements are ridiculous, this site should promote up and coming bands by allowing their bands to be posted here, this is a real joke band. they do have songs, just because they arent "turning the local music scene upsidedown" doesnt mean that they shouldnt have a wiki page!
  • Your third point explains exactly why this article must be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its mission is therefore to document what is already notable. Also, shouldn't there be an apostrophe in your name? Otherwise it implies plural Satans.  BD2412 talk 21:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Multiple Satans with a singular anus? What is the plural of anus anyway? Oh, yes, by the way a vote for delete for nn. Make it a strong delete for making me type anus twice today. D'oh! Now three times. Ifnord 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The plural of anus is anii. Heh. - Sensor 23:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:Music criteria. And what the hell kind of instrument is "Odins Skins" anyway? - Sensor 23:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odins Skins is the skin of Odin stretched across grim drum like objects and hit with a mighty force powered by Satan.
  • I see the vandals from 66.108.237.159 have been at it. Watch out, mates. We can revert like no one's business. --Sensor 03:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete--messy article, non-notable band. If it were to be kept, it would need serious cleaning up. Like others have pointed out, even the band's name is ungrammatical.--devotchka Devotchka 22:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 another admin, all revisions of article was nonsense. Thue | talk 19:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite launch vehicle[edit]

Needs verification. Molotov (talk)
15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Excuse me, but exactly what needs to be verified? The only content in the article is patent nonsense. The taste of some random guy for cheese is not something to be verified in wikipedia. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Uh, the article was vandalized - before the cheese crap added it had something about a launch vehicle. Sorry about the mixup!!Molotov (talk)
00:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is this a meaningless exercise or was there something useful in the article before it was vandelized? The page title would lead me to suspect that the topic was notable. — RJH 17:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, just checked. Thue | talk 19:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 bio. --Carnildo 22:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Teal[edit]

  • Delete vanity page --Leo
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. I stand by my earlier tagging of this as a {{nn-bio}} instead of listing it here. Speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn. Not speedy, because the article does assert a banal notability, and it's a value judgment which ought to go through AfD as to whether or not he's sufficiently notable. - mholland 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I am a preacher, and I have some plans" asserts notability? —Cryptic (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seppukake[edit]

Portmanteau neologism, likely hoax, very few Google hits --Fire Star 15:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Drauh 16:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Fire Star 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And remember kids, if it's not on Google it's not real! --unsigned comment from anon IP 66.82.9.66


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Airport Enthusiasts[edit]

NN organization recently founded by an Irish teenager. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why not create a user account, put this on the user page and hopefully it will become successful enough to be an article in the future? Dlyons493 Talk 22:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should you delete the article on my website.....? - Colm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snn (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC), likely creator of article[reply]
    • And when exactly did Wikipedia become your web site? As User:Dlyons493 states, this could go on your user page, but it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Niz 09:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity article complete with cutesy emoticons. He should put it on his userpage. Devotchka 02:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, request by the only person who had made non-triviel edits to the article. Thue | talk 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply typed lambda calculus (depracated)[edit]

Someone (Thorsten) created it by accident; Thorsten requests (on the talk page) that the page be deleted. It doesn't even have "deprecated" properly spelled in the title, and there's a reasonable simply typed lambda calculus page already.

bmills 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - bmills 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if possible. It seems there is enough consensus for that and a proper article exists already. Otherwise just delete per nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has a history with mulktiple editors, so the "creator request" speedy criterion doesn't apply. Delete as per request. DES (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Species of god[edit]

Nn book, not released yet; article written by user with the same name as the article; 28 google hits. 146.57.34.139 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so until this book achieves notability, no reason for an article.--Isotope23 17:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a member of homo sapiens, leading slave species of God, I must vote delete, since crystal-ball predictive article content is the domain of God and not of drone humans. Barno 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, what a mess. It's non-notable and reads like a copy-pasted press release. devotchkaDevotchka 22:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very messed up article. The Republican 03:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth[edit]

Dicdef/neologism. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig - Srikanth gets 533,000 Google hits [19] (apparently it is not an uncommon name), some of which are for notable individuals, see e.g. [20]. Therefore, make this a disambiguation page and (eventually) populate it with articles on the notable Srikanth's.  BD2412 talk 17:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and start a new page later, if needed. The current content is nonsense. Tintin 18:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is. No need to create a dab for articles that don't exist yet. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either nn-bio/attack if referring to a specific person, or unencyclopedic nonsense if just a no-context assertion. MCB 01:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The magazines seem to be real, but nevertheless the consensus is to delete the articles on them. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry press and Strawberry Ragtime[edit]

Previously marked for speedy deletion as "vanity", but I moved it here to AFD to get more opinions on whether or not these two online magazines are notable enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep these entries I think the online magazine is of sufficient notoriety that it should have an entry on wikipedia. - Matt Corcoran
  • Don't delete this entry. I've picked up several issues of the magazine, which is distributed all over near St. Mark's downtown. I've enjoyed just about every issue, and am interested in learning more about the free publication, which is why I'm here. So why is this entry marked for deletion--I thought the whole idea was to have info on topics that I can't find anywhere else? - Max Farrow
  • DeleteAbstain as apparently not WP:V. I can't verify if this magazine even exists and anon IPs vouching for it doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy (no offense intented). If someone can establish verifibility, I will change my vote (just message my userpage if you do). If WP:V is established, I would recommend a merge of Strawberry press into Strawberry Ragtime as "Press" is apparently defunct (per article).--Isotope23 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also quantify that the WP:V must be that it is more than just a self publishes zine...--Isotope23 17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strawberry Ragtime is WP:V, but I'm not sure how notable it is. I have not seen strong enough evidence to vote keep, but I've seen enough that it may possibly be notable. As it stands, I'm retracting my vote and abstaining. If kept though I still think both articles and the author wiki article should be merged into one.--Isotope23 16:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - A merge of Strawberry Press into Strawberry Ragtime makes sense to me. However, the magazine exists, and I have already said I would be willing to send copies to Wikipedia to prove its existence. Online it can be viewed at[ http://strawberryragtime.com] I'm not sure how the process of verifying these things goes, but you can call St Mark's Bookshop as well (212) 260-7853, and ask them about it. They can verify its existence. The magazine had a print run of about 500 copies a month, which isn't much, but it is something. Also, the magazine published many different writers from all over the world. I'm sorry for the anonymous IP address. I even tried creating an account this morning, but I don't know how to have my account logged in when I type this. The other anonymous IP addresses are from writers/ readers of the press I asked for support. Please give us a chance. -Whit Frazier

-Now that I think I've figured how to log in, please do at least take a moment to review the website. Thx. Whitfrazier 18:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Pure vanity as evidenced by the three votes to keep above - all connected with this mag. Shame! Ifnord 23:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'* Reply to strong delete The only person involved in the creating of the magazine from above is me. I sent out an email to old writers, and readers who had written in with comments asking for support. How else would people know this discussion was going on? Like I said, SR was and is a small operation. I repeat that there are not many venues for talented, marginalized writers, as many little literary zines as there are, because the focus is ultimately profit. Since I pay for absolutely everything out of my own pocket to run this operation, there is no profit here for me. There is a fan base. Give people time to write in. Did you visit the site? Whitfrazier 23:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's all and well, but your magazine isn't notable yet. When it becomes notable, then it's worthy of inclusion. For now, delete. Additionally, your meatpuppet votes aren't going to do you much good and in fact, their voting makes your case even tougher as most Wikipedia AFD voters have little tolerance for them. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the only "meat puppet" is me. As far as I know, the people above did not create accounts to log in for me. The only logged in person supporting me was me. I did send out a mass email to people familiar with the magazine, and well, two responded so far. It is a Friday. Also, I specifically asked if any readers were members of the Wikipedia community to log in for the site. I suggest giving it time. - Whitfrazier 23:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can vouch for the magazine´s international (if relatively minor) acclaim. It is well regarded here in Europe, as well as, unless things have changed since I left, in the United States. -Matthew Michel, Berlin, Germany, 24 October 2005


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Consensus is clear, and both the nom and the single delete voter have problems with the content, not the topic (and have expressed to me that they have no objections to a speedy keep). It's not fair to have this on AFD when it's currently protected, either. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide methods[edit]

Mostly OR, unverifiable, unencyclopedic how-to-kill yourself Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Additionally, it stands a substantial chance of giving this encyclopedia incredibly bad PR. The relevent methods already have their own article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is perfectly valid and lists the most common ways of commiting suicide in a passive manner, never encouraging the practice of suicide. All entries are easily verifiable. --Sn0wflake 01:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article could do with some better sourcing, but it's not in anything even vaguely resembling imperative tone. And OR? Where's the OR? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I'm kind of bonded to the material and even willing to do cleanup and wikifying. Ifnord 02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sn0wflake's comments Paul Cyr 02:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting list. --SPUI (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is this encyclopedic? Instructions for something destructive and yes, illegal, does not strike me as something that should be in Wikipedia. What's next, how to cover up a murder? --W.marsh 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not? Knowledge is why we're all here, spreading it is good and hiding it is bad. If people don't know what helps murderers get away then murderers will continue to use those methods. More knowledge is a better defence than less. Simililarly with suicide - the less we talk about it, the greater a problem it is. Ifnord 02:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well like I said, it's something illegal and destructive... giving out instructions is risky. For one thing, suppose someone follows the instructions and their family sues WP or even the editors of the article? But that's probably beyond the scope of an AfD. Discussing suicide/other harmful or illegal things is one thing, telling people how to do it is another. Just looking at that list, it could point someone who is suicidal to a more effective method... that kind of bothers me. I just don't see how that kind of stuff belongs in an encyclopedia...--W.marsh 02:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not see the reasoning for calling suicide illgeal. --Sn0wflake 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Assisting a suicide is still illegal in most places. Suicide itself is even illegal some places. It's still destructive wheverer you are. --W.marsh 03:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • There could be any number of jurisdictions where suicides (and physician-assisted suicides) are legal or illegal, but that has no baring on this work of text. Yamaguchi先生 03:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this because it is a valid subject. Wikipedia has an article on Rape fantasy as well. Should we delete subject matter based upon a public relations perspective? There are probably thousands of articles that a number of extreme activists and special interest groups from all angles disagree with here. Yamaguchi先生 02:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't really formed an opinion on that article, but just at a glance... does it really contain information that would help someone commit a rape? I don't think so. That's the difference. --W.marsh 02:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not the point I was originally trying to make, but this article doesn't help someone commit suicide any more than Crack_cocaine#Crack_cocaine helps someone make crack cocaine. Yamaguchi先生 02:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It tells many methods that probably aren't obvious to everyone (particularly younger people). It tells which methods are more effective than others. That's what's different than other articles. --W.marsh 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Private Butcher 02:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but a bit of tweaking wouldn't go amiss. Saberwyn 02:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment obviously I'm getting outvoted... I have no interest in a big argument where no one really changes their mind. Hopefully I've presented a counterpoint to the inclusion of this article... someone had to. --W.marsh 03:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could have provided an argument against its inclusion on Wikipedia? Sure... but it would have been totally irrelevant as that's not the correct place. This is. --W.marsh 03:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sn0wflake. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-21 T 03:12:38 Z
  • Keep on understanding that article's published source already has the same information. If it wasn't a legal/moral issue for the publisher of that book, don't see why it should be for WP. FRS 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero! (2006 film)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Not to mention, this article has no content and is basically just an advertisement. —Cleared as filed. 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superpolls[edit]

This article is purely promotional and the website doesn't need its own article. K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp diggers[edit]

Not on AMG, fails WP:Music as far as I can tell, article is a blatant advertisement as written --W.marsh 15:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Denelson83  07:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teh OT[edit]

Non-notable message board.--Shanel 04:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, this is a notable message board as measured by a) traffic, b) members, and c) relevance to commercial activity. Over the course of 2005 the message board has received tens of thousands of posts in response to in excess of 1000 topics. It represents a notable number of users drawn together by their enthusiasm for one of the most widely distributed and played MMORPGS of 2005. While there is no shortage of "non-notable boards", this is not one of them and it merits a listing in the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.152.58 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-21 05:05:32 UTC
  • Comment since it's annoyingly registration only to do anything, I can't verify the popularity of the board at the moment. It needs to have a certain ammount of traffic and unique, active members (5,000+ or so) to be notable enough for WP. --W.marsh 05:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how signficant verifiable information could be gathered on this. I'll reconsider if somebody shows verifiable independent sources that show there's a basis for writing a good article. If one has to log into the site to get any substantial information on it, then I think that pretty much disqualifies it. --rob 10:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Truly nn. Ifnord 14:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. thoroughly nn. using a free boardhost doesn't help imply permanence. Feel free to login using l/p: deleteme/password
  • Delete Per above --W.marsh 20:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Our members have made a total of 232,564 posts
We have 344 registered members
The newest member is Uncle Jesse
Most users ever online was 32 on May 3 2005, 12:07 PM
Of course with Uncle Jesse onboard.... ∴ here…♠ 18:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading all of the deletion policy and "What Wikipedia is not," I cannot find any undisputable reason to delete this page. The case for "verifiable information" is moot; it clearly states that this is not a reason for deletion unless it is "truly unverifiable," which it is not (as one could easily register and browse the forums and there are those forum users who can verify the information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.56.143 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-21 16:57:03 UTC
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Carnildo 21:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn forum (344 users). MCB 01:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Place asking for a voice. We need this place and I think everyone should see it, we may not have much users but we have a lot of activiy -- (preceeding by User:207.119.157.204 moved from top)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tesco Whole Black Peppercorns with Grinder[edit]

Advertisement. Unlikley to ever be the subject of an encyclopediac articel. nn consumer producet. Delete. DES (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge into Tesco. Advertisement. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of UK supermarkets sell their own brand whole black peppercorns with grinder, and I don't see what is different about this one. Average Earthman 01:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but surely you can't think a $60 billion + turnover compnay posted it as an advertisement. It is just someone's inappropriate attempt to create their own article. Merging it would be completely inappropriate. CalJW 13:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A3. — mendel ☎ 17:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Generic/store brand products generally are not notable. Haikupoet 19:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unless this article is expanded to explain why this particular Tesco product is notable, it needs to be deleted and certainly there is no point merging this into another Tesco article. Y control 10:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inherently unencyclopedic. — Haeleth Talk 23:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. How may desperate wiki-spamming bands are out there?...Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Daughters of Bristol[edit]

Non-notable band keepsleeping say what 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_O.T.H.E.R.S.[edit]

minor band. no actual releases. no media profile in New Zealand. noizyboy 03:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Usually, I wouldn't delete an article after an anonymous nomination and no other opinions, but this is such nonsense that I've little qualms about it. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThePRP[edit]

patent nonsense 202.7.166.168 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Of Make-Believe[edit]

Useless page that people probably won't read. Unwikified stub. -rayluT 01:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an episode of Barney and Friends. Keep as per the precedent on episodes of TV shows. Meelar (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please. Ifnord 02:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a consistent precedent as to whether episodes of all television shows are worthy of articles -- some have been kept, some not. In this case, there's no indication that any other episodes of this series have articles, and the fan base of Barney and Friends seems a bit too young to want to read encyclopedia articles about the series. Delete. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an issue of whether or not someone will read it, but whether it's notable or not. (Though notability surely implies that it will be read.) Individual Barney episodes are not only non-notable, but isn't the storyline of this episode almost exactly the same as every other one? (slight sarcasm.)  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who? the nominator, of course. Molotov (talk)
    16:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, TV show seen by millions of people and thus notable. Kappa 16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Andrew Levine 17:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan. --JJay 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • M/e/r/g/e into a List of Barney and Friends episodes until that list is large enough to require having articles broken out.  BD2412 talk 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable television episode. Denni☯ 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD2412 and WP:FICT. No indication of notability for this episode, beyond the very general series-wide notability mentioned by Kappa. No indication that any of these episodes, let alone this one, can be expanded beyond a stub. Barno 18:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BD2412. Unfocused 02:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now I've never watched Barney, but doesn't this description sound like just about every episode of every children's show ever made? And isn't Barney one of those shows thats on 5 days a week, every week, for years? Isn't attempting to have an article on every one of those shows futile to the point of lunacy? -R. fiend 21:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE (discounting IPs). Robert T | @ | C 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Guinan (Vote 2)[edit]

The following discussion was from the October 14th AfD. I've moved it here since there was a single registered vote, and although that is 100% for delete, 1 vote seems inadequate. Now that I'm handling the admin side of things I will Abstain. Wikibofh 23:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN bio. 202.156.6.62 22:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 202.156.6.62 is a suspected sock puppet.[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. Denni☯ 03:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He helped create a an internet cartoon. There's no reason to delete.--65.65.202.3 02:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Note: This user has only two edits so far, and both edits are in AfD.)[reply]
  • Merge Most of this article and Alan Guinan should be merged with Eskimo Bob. 24.224.138.240 13:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. No need to create a brand-new afd for this, just move the old one to today's page. And how did its parent article Eskimo Bob survive when 100% of the comments from users with more than a dozen edits were to delete? —Cryptic (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Eskimo Bob survived, obviously, because of magic.  :) I looked at registered users, and tried to make an informed decision. I'm open for being corrected. I thought about trying to just move it to here, the problem with that is I don't know how that would affect the old closure, which I'd hate to see that day stay open just for this. I'm still reasonably new, so if you have suggestions for a better way to handle it, I'm always open. Wikibofh 00:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I went back and took a look at Eskimo Bob's AfD. There were 4 registered votes, 2 keep, 2 delete. The 2 delete were obvious experienced users, the 2 keeps were obviously new users, but not obviously meat/sockpuppets. Both had about 20 edits, and the focus did not seem to be on Bob or it's ilk. Thus, 2 v 2 is no consensus, and as a result, keep. Wikibofh 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 02:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. -R. fiend 21:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tooltabs[edit]

Yet another Internet forum. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep it alive, it's harmless fun - embrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.195.82 (talk • contribs) 20:22, October 21, 2005

its looks like an accurate description of a well known website, i think it has a place here. - matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.195.82 (talk • contribs) 02:06, October 22, 2005

  • Delete per nom --Condorman 03:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC) <-- Tool fan[reply]

"Dont delete" It appears to be a short description of a website. Let it live. - Chakra.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiere[edit]

Non-encyclopaedic, merge with Lighting Just zis Guy, you know? 11:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is another one that was taken out of Britannica. I do believe there is a project to insert all articles from the 1911 edition and basically a lot of people would argue that if it was good enough for Britannica, (paper) then it's definitely good enough for Wiki.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  11:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been notable in 1911, but is it notable now? I have spent many hours in electrical wholesalers over the years and never heard this term! Maybe it's US-specific? It's just another type of uplighter, after all. Not that I diss Britannica, an old friend wrote the article on heating and ventilation for Britannica, but it does not seem to have much point as a standalone article. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it was notable in 1911, then it can still be considered as historic. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term widely used in US at least - I don't believe I ever heard it in the UK, though. Article needs cleanup including mention of geographical distribution of usage, but should be kept. —Morven 11:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only as 1911 Britannica entry, which gives it some worthiness I believe. --MacRusgail 11:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it was already an article and I merged the EB 1911 material with it. I have heard of this term before and own one of them. -- Kjkolb 12:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tho' geo-range of term should get clarified--since neither I nor m-w.com (nor Wikipedia, for that matter) has heard of "uplighter", it seems in might be another AE/BE thing (tho' it may be spreading[21]), but what about CE? Anyway, as for current relevance (at least in the US) see here. 24.17.48.241 13:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, as nom. I accept this. I will put on my to-do list updating to include reference to alternate usage. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This word is very much in use in the US. - Sensor 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-known mass-market item, term in wide use. MCB 01:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - suggestion to merge. Thryduulf 17:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck (band)[edit]

  • Delete Does not meet the music group guidelines, non-notable band with only one self-made CD. Coolgamer 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kyle Gass, who does meet notability. --keepsleeping say what 20:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Kyle Gass. feydey 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:Music. Has a prominent member in Kyle Gass and has toured with the Reverend Horton Heat and The Supersuckers see [22]. The producer of their forthcoming album has worked on albums by Beck and Garbage. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have rewritten article to show notability as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, still the article does not meet WP:MUSIC, with point 5. ... one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable, Tenacious D having released only one album barely itself meets the criteria, having known actor Jack Black in it makes it somewhat noticeable, also ... note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects - this is why i voted for a redirect; 2. ... a national concert tour - looks like Trainwreck has "toured America supporting..." so that's nothing special. This is why i will for now keep the vote as it is. -feydey 10:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no vote). I agree that the band meets WP:MUSIC (I consider Tenacious D a big enough deal to meet point 5). My personal feeling, though I'm not voting, is that this article probably won't ever get much bigger, and therefore doesn't need its own space. But really, I'd be fine with it staying there, or being merged with Kyle Gass -- whatever, so long as the information is not lost. If a merge takes place, a redirect is a very good idea. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Obviously, this shall be re-created on 2014, perhaps earlier.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. presidential election, 2016[edit]

WP:NOT a Crystal Ball Delete --JAranda | watz sup 22:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil's Root Beer[edit]

This is either deliberate spam, or the result of a very bored person sitting around looking at stuff. Either way it's non-notable. Reyk 12:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A beer with that name appears to exist. Google returns 1.800 hits for "Virgil's Root Beer" (with the "), some with the name of the beer in the title. There is even a review for it! (a very negative one, actually) [23]. That the author was bored is likely, but does not matter. Article needs a cleanup. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm about 95% sure I've had that, actually. No reason to believe it isn't real, and the wording certainly doesn't resemble spam in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real brand of root beer. Kappa 15:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I've seen this brand in at least a dozen supermarkets in my area, worst case scenario would be a cleanup if it read as spam, this is definately notable. Karmafist 16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paolo Liberatore - pretty Italian name - is that Paul the Liberator? Molotov (talk)
    16:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. You know the Italian language! (at least two words of it...) Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a nationally sold brand of root beer, and I suggest you try it if you can, as it's really good. Andrew Levine 16:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but is this an article about Root Beer or Wine? I was waiting for the author to describe the body and esters of the Root Beer... Could stand a cleanup.--Isotope23 17:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree this looks like someone who was bored just typed in some text from the label (does that make it a copyvio?) but legitimate brands are article worthy. Needs clean-up and expansion, however. 23skidoo 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sold at Trader Joe's and nationally-known. Agreed that it needs bigtime cleanup. - Sensor 00:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reference can be found in Iliad. I haven't heard of it, and I think the less commercial brands on wikipedia the better. --MacRusgail 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would that benefit the users? Kappa 16:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are thousands of brands, many of which are not notable at all, and they all have big marketing machines behind them... they don't need free advertising IMO, and I'm not sure most of the articles are encyclopedic, unless they can include stuff like histories, controversies, lawsuits, or perhaps even significant cultural references. --MacRusgail 17:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So the users can rely on the big marketing machines and don't need any NPOV source of information? Kappa 19:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • These articles are a form of marketing, unintentional or otherwise, unless they include more evidence for their notability (other than merely high sales which many brands have). My local corner shop sells hundreds of items, many of which can be found elsewhere, but are not particularly notable. This is an article about a "root beer", telling us it's a "root beer". --MacRusgail 14:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOV information on commercial brands and products is extremely valuable. Will be even more so in about a hundred years. Unfocused 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalinia[edit]

fake country, no google matches, no known context - Stoph 03:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it seems to be a country in NationStates so there's some context. Still I say delete as fancruft/gamecruft. --W.marsh 03:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... "At any time fewer than 150,000 remain in existence as a result of the deletion of nations due to various rule infractions and to inactivity." Sounds non-notable enough to me. - Stoph 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --MacRusgail 10:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete either as micronation or MMORPG-type cruft. The NationStates article says "As of July 22, 2005, players had set up over 1,300,000 individual nations", so individual fake "nations" are certainly not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per W.marsh. MCB 01:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wafa al yazidi[edit]

One sentence article: "(f) Palestinian artist. Born on 3 Aug 1973, France." Google turns up nothing. No evidence of verifiability or notability, anyone else know anything about the topic? —Morven 11:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verified / notable —Morven 11:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently nn --MacRusgail 11:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd personally have speedied. Ambi 12:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete hoax/vanity or non-notable bio chowells 13:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
    16:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-¨Do not Delete¨notable palestinine artist. Home page and Critic through Google (GR)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whit Frazier[edit]

Previously marked for speedy deletion, but I moved it here on AFD just in case anybody thinks that "the editor of the now defunct literary journal Strawberry Press Magazine which has become Strawberry Ragtime" is notable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WPCUG[edit]

Vanity ad article CambridgeBayWeather 16:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC) See vote change below.[reply]

  • also includes Windsor pc users group. CambridgeBayWeather 16:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can provide evidence of impact, membership, usage, etc. Just a slight whiff of a hoax as well. (Windows pc users group isn't exactly a niche interest, is it?) The Land 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Windsor, not "windows", The Land. As in "Windsor, Ontario". The Canadian city across the border from Detroit, Michigan. Unfocused 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was at the meeting of the WPCUG in Windsor Ontario ,on Oct 20/05 when this article was created. It was used as a demo to illustrate how to post an artile on Wikipedia and it was intended that members would log on and edit or expand the info in this article as per your policies. The demo lasted over an hour and a half. Most people there including myself, had never heard of this web site and were quite interested. Your protocalls and/or language requirements were new to us so much effort went to showing how various elements could be created. It was intended an is a learning tool. I assure you this is neither a vanity ad article nor a hoax. Art Belanger [email protected]

  • Delete, unfortunately since this usergroup appears not to be notable enough beyond its current membership. You might as well have used the sandbox for the demonstration of the wiki. Please read What wikipedia is not, specially the section on "free hosting". Of course, you and your usergroup are encouraged to keep contributing to wikipedia. Reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia may also be of help. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this artile is to give history of our users group. The article the way it stands is a stepping stone for our membership to give it life. The point of the Wikipedia is knowledge, knowledge of things present and past, which is what we entended out entry to be. It was not a 'vanity' post as was suggested. I ask what we would have to do to keep this page on your site. We feel that the history of our club is something that can benefit the internet community. Michael Celotto [email protected]

  • Comment The first thing you see on their web site is the link to their entry on Wikipedia and anyway what about all the other WPCUG groups?. CambridgeBayWeather 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy. If what these anons are saying is true, then perhaps one them should create an account with Wikipedia (it's free) and work on the article in their user-space until it is acceptable. As it stands now the article is just advertising. It addresses the reader (ie. "We are located...", and it has an external link in its header). Besides that it has nonsense text (ie. "Stuff Entered here") and inaccuracies (ie. "club was formed before I joined long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"). --maclean25 18:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do have an account with Wikipedia (mcelotto) I'm the person who is in charge of the website, and I gave the demo on who to use the wikipedia. The reason that we have the entries (ie. "Stuff Entered here") and inaccuracies (ie. "club was formed before I joined long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"), is because I was showing the users where to enter their information. I assure you that the information will be updated from what I have put. Actually if you look at the entry now, there is club history. I appoligize for the "(ie. "Stuff Entered here") and inaccuracies (ie. "club was formed before I joined long time ago in a galaxy far, far away")", but it was a way to show our membership how to enter information, because well the club did start before I joined. It has been corrected now, again I appoligize. Also the entry in the missage from Michael Celotto (me) I didn't sign into my Wikipedia account, and when I was giving the demo on the entering of information, I didn't even think to log in at the time. How do I edit the article in my userspace? I will also say that I did not know that we could not put our website's address in the header, I will change that. --mcelotto

  • Userfy to mcelotto. He appears to really want this article on Wikipedia. If it is not notable enough for the main-space, certainly it is notable enough for his user-space. --maclean25 06:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the president of the WPCUG and let me set the record straight. The posting of the page on your site is meant to document the history of our users group in Windsor that has been serving the area for more than 20 years now. The first posting was used as a learning tool to introduce members to wikipedia and show them how the site works, the content was a starting template. The night of the page was posted had the members were so involved browsing and viewing wikipedia and its contents that our time at the meeting ran out and the page could not be updated from it very simple template. The object was to have the members go home and at update the content. The posting of the deletion notice has stopped that process. I am asking that you get the club a chance to update the page and its content so it can be a valuable link to the clubs history. Let me also apologize for the way the fist page was left on your site. I assure you this is neither a vanity ad article nor a hoax. President of the WPCUG Larry Ruston [email protected]

  • Keep, and give the new users a little good faith and a little space for the joy of editing. This group has a very long history by measure of the history of personal computers, so there's your notability. Because it's near to me, and I was Vice President of a similar user's group in the same general area, I have knowledge of and can vouch that it has existed for more than 20 years. WPCUG members, this is when you should find some sources to cite to verify the data in the article. Unfocused 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still not seeing how this is isn't basically the same as the WPCUG website. Also, I don't think we can have this article by this name. The Westchester PC Users Group might complain... [24] The Land 10:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what disambiguation pages are for. Unfocused 15:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to thank everyone for the help that they have given us with our page. In regards to the Westchester PC Users Group, we at the Windsor PC Users Group would be more than happy to change the title of the Wiki as to not cause any arguments. Our page as it stands now does give history to the group. I do appoligize for the way that we left the page originally, I should have looked at the rules of the Wikipedia more closely, it was just poor preperation on my part...--Mcelotto 03:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X-net[edit]

NN software project by "2 code kids from surrey" --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfied. There's no way this will stay as an article, but it was created by a logged in user. I moved it to User:Xash and explained on User talk:Xash. Friday (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xash[edit]

I'm sure he's a lovely person. But a record of involvement on Sonic the Hedegehog messageboards does not warrant an encyclopedia article, particularly not a self-contributed one. The Land 14:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Land 14:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Should just be an {{nn-bio}}. Private Butcher 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thought crossed my mind. However, there is a claim to notability in the phrasing of the article (even if a not very good one in my view). I've asked the user to move the material to his talk page, if he does no problem iwht it as a speedy candidate. The Land 15:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: vanity page Ritchy 15:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z_amigos[edit]

minor band. one self-released EP. no media profile. noizyboy 03:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_21&oldid=1081093441"