Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 22 October 24 >

Purge server cache

October 23[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 speedy deleted per speedy criterion A2. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Франсуа Озон[edit]

I don't speak Russian so I don't even know if this is a notable entry. Should be deleted or, better yet, translated V/M
20:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slight translation: ' ' "Francois ozon (Franç.ois Ozon) ' ' ' (it were borne on 15 November, [ [ 1967 ] ]), French scenario motion picture director, whose films are characterized by sharp satiric witticism and free views on human sexuality. It conquered international popularity because of its films ' ' 8 zhenshchin/8 femmes "([ [ 2002 ] ]) and '" basseyn/.Sshimming Pool "([ [ 200e]]).Fransua ozone is considered one of the most noticeable young directors of" new wave "into Frantsii..tyuumb|.e00pkh|.rigyut|.Fran&#иy;.ois OzonZakonciv studies in the French cinematographic school [ [ La femis ] ], ozone created several short films, in particular, ' ' small smert'/.La Petite Mort" ([ [ 1995 ] ]), ' "summer plat'e/.Une robe d'é.té' ' ([ [ 1996 ] ]) and ' ' look on more/.Regarde La mer "([ [ 1997 ] ]) (all three they were released in Russia by united collector under the general name" Nartsiss at the edge of summer"). In these and other short films of those years style characteristic for ozone alr. V/M
20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NO I DO NOT SPEAK A WORD OF RUSSIAN. (Я не говорю русского) V/M
20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This a translation from English into Russian! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Ozon)

I put it wrongly on the English language section first and now it is on the right section (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BD%2C_%D0%A4%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B0), so it can be deleted from the English pages. Sorry for any inconvenience caused :) User:Aleksmot/User_talk:Aleksmot
21:50, 23 October 2005 (BST)

  • Speedy delete per CSD A2 (has been transwiki'd, see author's comment above) — Haeleth Talk 20:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3045[edit]

It's an unfinished, unpublished, computer game The Land 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The Land 19:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete game reviews are POV anyway Tony 19:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 08:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete Hey, there wasn't a article for it anyways...whats the harm of it then? Bigboss765 9:55 , 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Supply Company[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. over 280 stores and verifiable. It could do with expanding and wikifying though. --Apyule 11:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. 280+ stores seems notable enough for me. --Holderca1 15:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Honbicot 03:38, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Barbour[edit]

Found this because it was listed as a copyvio. The author claims to be Adrian Barbour and to have rights to the biography, which is plausible given the circumstances. But, that lends another problem: vanity and notability. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --MacRusgail 18:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Stu 02:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, insufficient notability. MCB 04:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Flapdragon 02:00, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aerose[edit]

dicdef Flapdragon 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Delete, it's been created on Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy it clearly a dictdef - reason I created it was that it was the only link missing from List of words spelled with æ. I've just changed that link to Wiktionary instead. Dlyons493 Talk 09:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Apyule 11:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Cryptic--MacRusgail 17:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There appears to be no need to transwiki, a definition appears to be on Wiktionary now. The speedy delete comes from the fact that the creator wants it deleted and the article has been edited by no one else (AfD tags do not count as an "edit by someone else", IIRC) - a G7. Wcquidditch | Talk 17:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afflicted Quarter[edit]

I almost speedied this nn band, but I couldn't find a reason to. They have no albums that i could find and their website does not impress me. Broken S 21:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable Tony Bruguier 21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. OK, well, perhaps it's salavgeable, but it's still totally incoherent, and definitely an nn-band. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 08:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Might be salvageable but mostly likely not. Very NN anyway.Devotchka 22:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akron/Family[edit]

Music group with no assertion of notability. Though the group has technically gone on an "international concert tour", the only venues listed on the site are such things as bars and cafes. Nameneko 05:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems to be a unanimous "keep (and expand)" vote, I'm going to retract my AfD nomination and vote keep and expand knowing that there are similar articles around Wikipedia and that this article qualifies under WP:MUSIC. An administrator may close this discussion when they feel that it is appropriate. -Nameneko 20:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #2. According to the band's own web site and their record company's web site, they are currently on a tour of eight European countries (not even counting their work with Angels of Light, which could give them another seven countries). They may not meet any other criteria, but their tour looks sufficiently international to qualify them. The article could use significant improvement, though. --Metropolitan90 06:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, does "international" simply mean a string of performances in small venues in more than one country? -Nameneko 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Allmusic.com notes two albums counting a split recording with Angels of Light see [1]FAMILY&uid=CAW060510230314&samples=1&sql=11:702tk6rxtkra~T2 as well as the international tour despite the size of the venues. Capitalistroadster 07:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but expand the article. The band is somewhat new (2002) but has really gained niche popularity. --Kooky | Talk 08:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs expansion. The Republican 18:35, 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 09:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AL-BASSAM FAMILY[edit]

Non-notable. Please be sure to get the pages that redirect to this one on delete. — ceejayoz talk 00:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 00:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non-notable. Also the pages Al bassam, ALBASSAM and Al-bassam are redirects to this and need to go as well. Reyk 00:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Our friends mentioned that the article is non-notable but did not mention the reason. User:Bo3oaf
    • Well, for one, Google turns up very few results for a family name. — ceejayoz talk 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 10 pages of accurate results in google are not few. Add to them the results if searched with in Arabic text. From what I know, Wikipedia does not consider language as a ligitimate reason to delete an article. There are many companies, products and schools named after this Family name. If time is given to me, I would provide further information. 24.71.223.140 00:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)User: Bo3oaf[reply]
  • Dont Delete My account is new here and when I logged in, it asked me if I want to start a Norah article! I dont think that this family name is less notable than my own name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norah (talk • contribs) 20:28, 23 October 2005
    • Actually, it asked if you wanted to create your user page, User:Norah, which is not a part of the main Wikipedia namespace and thus permitted. Bo3oaf is free to create User:Bo3oaf without interference. — ceejayoz talk 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, please sign your name with four tildes when commenting on non-article pages, like so: ~~~~. — ceejayoz talk 00:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TheMadBaron 06:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the 556 Google hits of ceejayoz's search above is widely off the mark, and doesn't seem to take into consideration that this is an Arabic name. A search for "al-Bassam", in Latin letters, gives 34,000 hits in Google. I haven't looked very far down the list, and an Arabic search may give better or more relevant results. Both regular Google and Google News seem to indicate that there are some notable Saudis and other Arabs with this name, but I can't verify that they actually belong to one and the same family. Any reference for that? Uppland 07:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Al-Bassam and cleanup. There was a Abdul Moshin Hamad Al-Bassam who was an astronaut payload specialist; a religious scholar named Sheikh Abdullah Al-Bassam, &c. So it would serve as a disambig page, like Smith, Jones, Johnson, &c. — RJH 16:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 212.138.47.21 17:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete 195.229.242.54 20:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dont delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.53 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 October 2005
  • dont delete 212.138.64.178 09:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' non notable vanity. chowells 19:27, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Martin Goñi[edit]

Possibly an hoax. All references that can be found about Alberto Martin Goñi say that he's the captain of a Spanish handbol team called Portland San Antonio. Also, I can't find any information about anyone adapting The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. As a fact, the search "Martin Goñi" "the curse of the jade scorpion" only returns wikipedia mirrors. Jomateix 14:03, 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. DS 12:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kitchens[edit]

not notable, a freshman at Reed College Kiwidude 23:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero relevant Google hits, so far as I can tell. MCB 04:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 07:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 04:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN BlankVerse ∅ 23:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ok fine just delete me..i dont know why you should
  • Speedy delete, I've added an nn-bio to it. CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:55, 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 (3d, 1k, or 75% delete)--Scimitar parley 21:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Laskey[edit]

Non notable bio. Low google hit. Vanity and self-promo. The JPS 10:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure about this movie's credibility tho' -- it seems like an amateur film (remembering the access people have to quite advanced technology these days...) The JPS 07:33, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (2d, 1k, or 66%- barely delete). --Scimitar parley 21:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Agencies[edit]

nn company subject to nn legal dispute. Page as written is hopelessly PoV of one of the parties in the dispute FRS 22:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The BBB's rating would seem to be a statement of fact. It can hardly be called PoV... No vote. — ceejayoz talk 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This BBB (for Southern California) has 34 Collection Agencies listed of which nine are (like the subject of this article) ranked 'F'. None of the 34 are listed in WP and the only reason I can imagine that this one has an article is that the anonymous user that posted the article has an axe to grind against the company. I think its a bad idea to allow an article like this, b/c to make it NPOV would practically eliminate its already miniscule content or would require adding "balancing" company PoV material that is interesting to no one DeleteFRS 00:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote just yet. Page as written is highly POV. Yet collection agency with clients including SBC Yahoo may be notable.—Gaff ταλκ 22:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not PoV (as per ceejayoz), therefore no valid criteria for deletion. TheMadBaron 08:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the verbatim quote from the BBB that is probably a copyvio, and anyway is redundant to the BBB link, and added a summary of and link to the actual court opinion that dismissed the lawsuit against this company. I still favor deleting this article b/c the company and the lawsuit lack notability, and I'm against using WP to publicize (non-notable) lawsuitsFRS 20:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:48, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only keep vote is by an anonymous IP with a total of three contributions. — JIP | Talk 09:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anandroid[edit]

A substub about a DJ. No relevant Google hits. Non-notable Renata3 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable, unencyclopedic. Thesquire 00:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 07:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Altough I se no reason too keep it I also see no reason to remove it. If Mr Anandroid does in face exist in the DC area and does what he says then leave it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchopedia[edit]

Damaged nomination made by another user. This article was deleted at this page, but the current verision is not IMO "substantially similar" to the version delted by consensu, so i have removed the speedy delete tag. Abstain. DES (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This is a difficult one. I don't see a reason to delete this, except that there was a strong consensus to do it last time, and I don't think that the situation has changed. --Apyule 11:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an easy one. The article makes no claim to notability. Anarchopedia's main page says it has a total of 148 articles. Maybe it'll be notable someday, but not yet. --A D Monroe III 16:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fairly interesting, even if small. We have links to Uncyclopedia and Kamelopedia, as well as the Star Trek one. --MacRusgail 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Revolución (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That is almost exactly like wikipedia. The Republican 19:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Their Special:Statistics page says that they have over 1700 pages, and it seems to be a fairly frequented website. It might be of some interest to people interested in open-content information databases like Wikipedia, so its placement here is valid, in my opinion. Frag
  • Delete, has few articles and still gets few visitors (Alexa: 1,535,224). - Mgm|(talk) 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to List_of_Wikis Renata3 03:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn forum, few users, articles, and very low Alexa rank. MCB 03:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Renata3. Unfocused 03:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add a link to it on Anarhcy. still contains many people's point of view and, as such, part of human knowledge on this subject --Dave
  • Keep I keep seeing mention of how their meta site has only 151 articles. This is true, but Anarchopedia is not just its meta site, it is its English, Indonesian, German, Spanish, French, Croatian, Serbian etc. The reasons for delete here are that there are few articles and such, but the people saying this seem to only be going to the meta site, while Anarchopedia and the Wikipedia article about it mention the other sites. Ruy Lopez 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has had an article on User:Fred Bauder's Wikipedia fork called Wikinfo for around two years. It is important to be consistent. If the Wikinfo article is going to be kept, so should this one. 172 | Talk 12:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, the recent changes for [Anarchopedia http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Special:Recentchanges] and Wikinfo show contributions by about the same number of people, if not more on the part of Anarchopedia. More edits are often made on Wikinfo; but the bulk of them are by Fred Bauder and the user whom I think is the site's only other administrator. So we can't delete this article but keep Wikinfo on the basis of notability. 172 | Talk 12:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable in many languages Tedernst 21:34, 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. — JIP | Talk 10:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie-nintendo[edit]

Tagged for speedy as website vanity. If it were a platform for a single external link, it'd be a speedy, btu since it doesn't include a link, it's not. -Splashtalk 03:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no evidence presented that this community of Nintendo users is worthy of note. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There were some forty-thousand hits on google for this (link). Aside from the result returning a link for the actual site, of the first ~50 results I scanned over, as well as the ~two dozen results starting from number 200, every single one was spam on forums, blogs, etc.(I didn't look at all 40,000 for obvious reasons). This website is not notable. --Qirex 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a list of Nintendo communities, then merge, otherwise delete. --JB Adder | Talk 13:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable and I smell some vanity here, maybe it's just me. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Snottygobble | Talk 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable -- Ian ≡ talk 03:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nintendo (well, ya never know). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a list of Nintendo communities, then merge, otherwise redirect to Nintendo. Alphax τεχ 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, otherwise redirect. Ambi 02:22, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard (vivaYork)[edit]

Per the arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promenade (vivaYork), this is a article about a Toronto bus station. It is already mentioned in the main article at Viva York. There is nothing encyclopedic to add to that mention. Rossami (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Have any of you deletists ever even rode on the Viva system? Compared to conventional transit, it is a bus rapid transit line and deserves to be given the status of a rapid transit line! I agree fully that this is the biggest effort in the Greater Toronto Area since the subway, and they already have plans for a Transitway so just keep it as is. How do I know? I commute on viva to school saving precious time (going up 60 kms) and I live within 10 minutes walking distance to a vivastation. Phil-hong 03:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a stub, put this info under Viva'a page. Other pages regarding vivastations should be deleted. It can come back later when it is a major hub connecting some form of fixed heavy/light rail transit services. Even though it's a BRT, it's still a fairly light bus service when compared to other transit systems around the world. Just be patient! Just take a few photographs and dump it in the wikicommons. User:AmosNider 2005 Oct 27
    • Do you really think that will happen anytime soon? Isn’t it true that even in the 416 area they are talking about BRT?—Gniw (Wing) 08:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I don't think it will ever happen. Someone please take some photographs and let the photos speak for themselves. Don't need to waste a dedicated article on it. Put some captions under the photographs in a gallery and I think that would be enough. --AmosNider 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "small terminal" with "partially covered platforms" and a ticket booth is nowhere near the huge Singaporean efforts. Delete. Pilatus 17:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bus terminal --JAranda | watz sup 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bus terminals are important transport nodes. Kappa 01:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are highway overpasses and intersections. The world has countless, largely interchangable bus terminals, and not all of them are encyclopedic subjects. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) Forgot to sign this; not sure when I made the comment
  • Delete per Rossami Denni☯ 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Comment: Please give this some time. Viva was launched like just last month and the main Viva article is marked for cleanup for a "higher standard". You can't expect people to have much incentive cleaning up the main article if they see their sub-articles getting deleted even though the subject in question has been marketed as the biggest transit improvement in York Region in who-know-how-many-years. Also, you can't compare this to Singapore: This is Canada; we spent almost 10 years building just 4 subway stations, and the municipalities don't have a lot of money. (This is, at least in te marketing, the York Region equivalent to the Toronto subway. You have to treat these bus terminals like subway stations.) IMHO Promenade (vivaYork) has been wrongfully deleted for the same reasons (at least at this point of time).—Wing 03:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: To put this in perspective, please read the LACMTA_Blue_Line article. Many so-called “stations” on this light rail line are even smaller than “partialy covered platforms” (many have just one covered platform the size of a streetcar stop) and have no ticket vending machines, yet they are in Wikipedia. When I was in LA and rode the blue line the first time I was completely taken aback by their smallness. Please be rational in your votes.—Gniw (Wing) 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are also unexpandable substubs, and should probably also be deleted. Just because a mistake has been made once does not mean it needs to be repeated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you live in LA? Are you sure they are indeed unexpandable substubs? Promenade (vivaYork), which has been deleted and is the rationale for this article's deletion, is found to be a large terminal. Whoever nominated that article's deletion, and all who voted delete, apparently didn't even bother to check facts from even the external links.—Gniw (Wing) 16:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless the building is a particularly large building, I don't see what the size has to do with anything. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • This shows that you are not a Canadian. The growth of YRT and GO was featured in a TV program, and an official of GO was interviewed. When asked why GO stations do not belong to large, mixed transit-commercial-residential buildings, the official replied, "[paraphrase] because Canada has so much land, developers are not interested in cooperating with transit authorities to develop large complexes along with the stations". Unless a miracle happens, you will not find many "large buildings" in the 905 area, even if it's a major transit hub.—Gniw (Wing) 16:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I spend about 1/3 of my time in Canada, pending my permanent residenence paperwork, although it wouldn't be unfair to say that Saskatoon and Toronto are only in the same country as a matter of technicality. ;D
                But enough about ad hominem appeals. I feel this isn't an encyclopedic subject unto itself primarily because it is, in my estimation, an unexpandable stub, with no current information beyond where it is and the fact that it is indeed a bus terminal. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please define "unexpandable stub", if you have not re-read the article lately. Also, if you were referring to Promenade, it indeed is one of those few miracles, as Promenade is a major mall in the area.—16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • Looking at your changes, you've made the location very specific, and added the context that would be implicit if this were a mention in the Viva Blue article. You've also added a paragraph about the fact that, for now, it is the end of the Viva Blue line, also quite appropriate to the Viva Blue article. Seems like you've expanded it into an excellent merge candidate, and I am amending my vote accordingly.
                    Is there any other possible expansion for this article as a subject unto itself? Was it particularly hard to get land for this specific location (moreso than the other Viva Blue or Viva York locations)? Has it been the home of a cult of Marduk? Is there some other claim of individuality, to make it not an interchangable member of a whole set (to wit, the Viva Blue terminals)? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • As I do not live in the 905 area (I live in Toronto proper), I don't know. I could actually take the Viva to the terminal and see if there's anything else obvious, or maybe write a letter to YRT and ask for some info, but as a non-local this is probably the best I can do. And because of the timing of the AfD, the article will probably get deleted before I can find out anything.—Gniw (Wing) 17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Well, if it were merged, it'd be trivial to unmerge if you were able to uncover something. ¬_¬ If this gets deleted and you come up with a claim of individuality/notability, it'll be a slam-dunk undelete at Wikipedia:Deletion review. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a major transportation hub for a fast growing suburb of a major city. It is also brand new, and needs time to be touched up on. tv316 06:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 06:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an encyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...unto itself. Gniw's edits have lead me to believe this would be better suited merged into Viva Blue.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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  08:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billy "BK" Man[edit]

Nothing on google. I'm pretty sure this is a hoax. Woohookitty 10:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Flapdragon 12:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I want to read the rest of the story. I just don't want to read it here. TheMadBaron 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The Western Fries and La Cheez Burgell" seals it for me. Punkmorten 18:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Total hoax. Devotchka 22:35, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binatone[edit]

This is a few paragraphs advertising a chain of electronics retailers. As such it has no encyclopaedic value. The text is POV and is what one would expect to appear in an advertisement in a magazine. Kghose 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Kghose 00:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adequately describes an international business. If it's POV, feel free to edit the article. Kappa 01:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've removed the worst of the advertising. TheMadBaron 06:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the edits TheMadBaron, but I'm still not clear why this should go in an Encyclopaedia. I was looking at the precedents page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents) and see that a company is 'noteable' if it is listed on the stock exchange. I guess if Binatone is, it qualifies. Then, to be consistent, we should keep it, but I'll try and rewrite some more to make it a little less like an advertising or PO brochure! Kghose 18:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sales of over $100,000,000 US in small appliances would suggest a very large customer base indeed! Unfocused 04:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't been able to confirm this value, has anyone found a puclic document for this? Thanks! Kghose 19:25, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleg[edit]

This word is a neologism/portmanteu, is not in widespread usage, is not of encyclopedic character, and already has an entry in Wiktionary. Thesquire 22:44, 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 10:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob (Weird Al Yankovich song)[edit]

Delete. Offers no information other than a listing of some lyrics and the note that the lyrics are palindromes. The latter fact is the only thing notable about this song, and it is already mentioned on Poodle Hat (the page for the album that it is a part of), so I don't see how this article could possibly develop into something encyclopedic. Also, "Yankovic" is spelled incorrectly in the article name, so if kept it should be moved to "Bob (song)" or "Bob ("Weird Al" Yankovic song)". -- Tyler 22:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, or move to Bob (Weird Al Yankovic song). TheMadBaron 08:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better merged into the album article - Skysmith 10:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tyler. I'm a Weird Al fan (and looked like him until shaving my head) but Poodle Hat already contains everything notable about this individual song. Barno 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This song is particularly notable and no reason not to have an entry for it. The Land 15:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMO songs, even when done by notable artists, are only notable if they are hits. Yankovich has had a few songs that would merit inclusion, but this isn't one of them. --Rogerd 04:29, 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 12:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolumia[edit]

Looks like a fabrication to me. "Bolumia" yields no Google hits related to Central/South America or imaginary souls. Delete if not verified (but if verified then we can withdraw this listing). Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources, unverified, -- Malo 05:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Spanish language Google gives no returns other than references to bulimia. --MacRusgail 16:59, 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 12:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BortnerAnimation[edit]

  • OK, guys, I can kind of understand why you would say that this site isn't very notable, but about the spamming thing: My two brothers and I are really sorry about that. Our site was in it's awkward developing stage, which is when we didn't really get this sort of thing. We had a lot of stupid ideas, which we deleted, but we don't even know WHY we did that spamming thing, especially on the H*R Wiki. We really like Homestar Runner. We went to the deletion logs and read what we had typed and were like, "Wow, I can't believe we wrote something like that." That's the only thing in our history that we are ashamed of doing. Again, we're sorry and hopefully you can forgive us for that. --ZAF 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.bortneranimation.com seems a non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable self-promotion / site-promotion. Seems like this site has been advertised and subsequently deleted before (see last December's deletion log here and use your browser's find command), and I'm sure I remember some spam somewhere else. --Qirex 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not nearly notable enough. but i must admit, I laughed. -- Malo 07:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's funny, it's topical, it's well done, but still makes no claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Rogerd 03:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable/encyclopediac Prashanthns 17:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Prashanthns. Johntex\talk 23:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosiphus[edit]

Best-case scenario: a misspelling of Bocephus and/or a reference to the film Bubba Ho-tep. Worst-case scenario: patent nonsense GTBacchus 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a joke at best. Superm401 | Talk 08:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like nonsense. Insufficient context to establish notability. TheMadBaron 08:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I own the DVD of Bubba Ho-Tep but haven't yet watched it, so I'm not sure if this is some sort of reference to something from the film. However, it reads like nonsense and even if this is a notable film character/concept/whatever we'd be better off starting from scratch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hank Williams, Jr. on the grounds that this is plausible misspelling of Bocephus. Dsmdgold 13:00, 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 delete. also from wikipedia's OFFICIAL POLICY: wikipedia is not a slang guide -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bosshole[edit]

slang dicdef, also POV and just silly, I found the page tagged AfD and agreed, followed up GTBacchus 08:02, 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 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbowl[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:08, 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 16:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Forum[edit]

A non-notable internet forum with less than 1000 posts. Thue | talk 10:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forum with 26 registered users. Punkmorten 12:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per The JPS. *drew 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity forum. It was spammed on several other wiki articles, which they actually bragged about on the forum itself.
  • Delete. Vanity. --Der Sporkmeister 09:56, 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 DELETE. Other than Chainy, all keep votes are by users with only one contribution. — JIP | Talk 16:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny_Meatball[edit]

Not an article. Seems to be a list of topics from a web forum Juliusross 13:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn-bio. — Haeleth Talk 14:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn; Wikipedia is not somewhere to dump a load of forum posts... CLW 16:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Stjarna 16:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the Encyclopædia Dramatica. -Ich 20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This story means to much to the &TOTSE community to delete! --Chainy 03:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 04:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep C'mon... C'mon...
  • Keep i agree that this article should be kept, TOTSE needs clarification on an important issue and this page is imperative to the success of said issue
  • Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. nn-bio.—Gaff ταλκ 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Best post in the history of the internet.
  • Delete. It is full of patent nonsense, which does not belong on any encyclopedia, much less this one.  Denelson83  22:54, 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 keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 18:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cecelia Dougherty (filmmaker) moved to Cecilia Dougherty (filmmaker)[edit]

NN bio. Self-pomo. Very low google hit, with the top results returning a dead page. A lonely page (other than dab). Unverifiable. The JPS 10:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on imdb credits. There appears to be two spellings of the first name (one in error), and two for the last name (both in credits). Depending on the spelling used, there's a good number of relevant hits, and a number that I haven't yet determined are her, or a person with a similiar name. --rob 12:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It turns out the other person on the DAB page, S. Cecilia Dougherty might be the one who is non-notable and non-verifiable; as I (so far) can't find anything on her, and there's no links in that article. --rob 13:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, there's an IMDB entry here. It's tough to pan it for self-promotion. RGTraynor 12:04, 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 16:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Komarek[edit]

Vanity page - EurekaLott 17:28, 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 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clint M. Diesto[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable. --Apyule 11:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks context, apparently someone in Phillipines? --MacRusgail 17:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable; borderline CSD:A7. MCB 00:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity Renata3 03:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for already stated reasons. --Condorman 03:40, 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 18:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos IT Partner[edit]

Wikipedia cannot include every business in the world. This business appears to be a very small and non-notable one. "Cosmos IT Partner" generates 437 Google hits. Alexa has no data on its website, http://www.cosmositpartner.com . Joel7687 21:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in case my opinion wasn't clear enough. --Joel7687 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. chowells 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 08:31, 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 merge to Smoking fetishism. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 01:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coughing fetishism[edit]

(Originally nominated as a speedy by User:Isolani). The only google hits this get is Wikipedia mirrors. Looks and smells like a hoax. Thue | talk 18:26, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Cums[edit]

  • Promotional autobiography, not notable. Fredrik | talk 15:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like some kind of press release/ad put out by her agent. CLW 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until she's finished being an "an upcoming adult film star" (so to speak). tregoweth 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Snigger! CLW 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. She's performed in at least one film/movie produced by a majorish non-porn firm [3], though one that's not been aired yet, so she still isn't notable. The Land 19:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is factual and verifiable information. Notability is POV. Credited as performer in at least 18 DVD releases. At least as notable as several others found in List of female porn stars. Unfocused 20:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The section about her beliefs could be cleaned up. Over 48000 Google results for "Crissy Cums" see [4]

Capitalistroadster 20:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Watch out sensitive souls, that's an image search. Kappa 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got no results from that link. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Safe search on maybe? Regular web search gets me 41,700 at the moment. 41,700 [5]. Kappa 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep many, many, many porn stars. She is at least as notable as most of these.--Nicodemus75 21:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Doesn't appear to have achieved notability within her genre. The fact she has a strong POV regarding porn isn't significant. 23skidoo 23:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, google results and database listing[6] prove name recognition. Kappa 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are people who want information on Crissy. She is noteworthy and has references to IMDB, adult film database, and press releases on AVN. Regardless this is a forum that will instantiate factual and unbiased information about her. I do not think a Wikipedia entry would qualify as a press release as one would have to explicity search for the article and then there is the issue that factual history can be detrimental to the theory of "good press" (unsigned comment by Crissycums, creator of the article.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CrystalCherry[edit]

Looks like a vanity page to me. Only 489 Google hits - the majority unrelated with the rest consisting of either this person's own sites or message board postings. Does not meet guidlines at WP:MUSIC and I can find no reference at allmusic.com or amazon.com. The article claims that this person is dead - I am unable to find any reference to this online, even on the sites listed (possible hoax?). Kurt Shaped Box 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A clear an obvious vanity page and hoax. Claims to be signed to Arista records, and yet the record company's website has no mention of her, and Googling them both produces just the Wikipedia articles. Nick04 05:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Kurt Shaped Box 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe so, i think that this is for real. Rather the artist is dead or not is unknown. But i know for a fact that all the info is factual (except the dead part) Leo
    • Interestingly, the references to her death were added to the CrystalCherry article from the same IP used to post the above. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 06:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she's dead, that's very sad, but it doesn't make her notable. TheMadBaron 07:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to her official site reports of her death have been greatly exaggerated. Anyway, whether she's alive or dead is irrelevant - it's still a vanity article. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree - the article DOES sound like a page of vanity and was not written in a neutral tone either. It contains miniscule unimportant details and Burns is/was not a standout artiste. And what's with with the subheading "Tragedy takes down a princess?" Vanity? I believe so. Kahlen 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Notable up and coming new artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal Cherry (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 October 2005 (user has only 2 edits)
This comment was done by a user calling themselves "Crystal Cherry", who did not feel the need to sign.Vulturell 07:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we should her about new artist, to say she isnt relevent and something like a song is more relevant than a person. Come on, she has a new BIO up on her site and i assume that was place to eliminate confusion. Instead of trashing why not one of us redo the wiki bio of Crystalcherry and call it a day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.211 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 October 2005 (user has only 2 edits)
  • Keep This article is terrible, that's true, but that doesn't warrant deletion. The person is real, notable, and deleting this article will not help wikipedia become more complete or accurate. Cleanup, absolutely; deletion, no. — Fudoreaper 00:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral but clean up! The article is a complete mess, and looks more like a news/blogpage, but with some work it could be kept. But; do not keep the article if the only reason is that she is up and coming...if everyone of those were to be kept, 90% of WP would consist of failed popstars... Bjelleklang - talk 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable enough; being an up-and coming is not good enough to warrant an article. Bjelleklang - talk 18:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean it up. I don't care about this person, but she's clearly done a few things worth writing about. The page needs to take it down a peg so that it sounds less like a press release. Devotchka 00:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also see weirdness at October_21. Jimhutchins 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I to my understanding, when someone doesn't perform well with a major record company and they are huge like Arista, selling of their contract is something likely to happen. Why would someone who only sold 98 copies have their own arista page.
    • Please note that someone using this IP has already previously 'voted' above [7] and was also responsible for adding the false rumours of this person's death to the article [8] - also note the contradictory nature of the two edits. A more cynical man than myself might suggest that this was some kind of publicity stunt.--Kurt Shaped Box 07:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is highly feasible that this is indeed a publicity stunt. First the "hacking" of God knows what that CrystalCherry is fuming about the kiss with Aaron Carter or something, then the death hoax. This is a cry of desperation on CrystalCherry's part. Probably a way to "win sympathy" - let's call it - so her 'albums' will sell more. As far as I know, Amazon doesn't even have her albums on auction. Kahlen 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What "sympathy"? What "albums"? I don't think she has any albums out there that can be bought except online, at her website. Google would have turned up at least a few hits for at least one of them - and believe me, I checked and cross-checked them all. Any "American Idol" contestant deserves a Wiki entry more than this thing.Vulturell 07:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, she really isn't notable enough. Possibly userfy. - DDerby-(talk) 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough, plus it's a vanity page. Teklund 14:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kurt No SHIT i was only using the information i got. Just because I was wrong doesnt mean an entire article must be deleted. You do alot of complaining, why dont you fix the damn article
  • Comment. If this article is deleted Crystal Clear...revisited, Now and Forever: The Very Best of CrystalCherry and Crystal clear should perhaps also be deleted. Teklund 07:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted, those articles should certainly be deleted. Crystal clear should be deleted as copyvio, regardless, and Now and Forever: The Very Best of CrystalCherry could be merged with CrystalCherry, if kept. TheMadBaron 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soon as possible. Vanity page all the way. The person that did this page is also updating other pages with pointless info about CrystalCherry. Look at this - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Brooke+Anne+Burns%22&meta= - the five hits I got for "Brooke Anne Burns" - the full name of this person, all of them relate either to her death or stem from Wikipedia itself. No other sites reference her - professionally speaking - she doesn't exist in the music world. Also - Wiki says she has done "voice work for movies" - well, the IMDB lists no Brooke Anne Burns - the only Brooke Burns it has is the sort-of famous actress - not this one. Vulturell 07:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see what you mean. Actually, I don't see a clear reason why this article should be kept. Notable artist? Up and coming? I beg to differ! Kahlen 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • CrystalCherry (the user) should have put all the info from her article on her user page. That way at least it would be kept online in some format. You don't see a clear reason of why this article should be kept because there is not a single reason why it shouldn't be deleted right now. It puts the Wiki deletion process to shame.Vulturell 07:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity/hoax --Ryan Delaney talk 07:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am a Wikipedia admin and this article is near the top of my list of AfD debates to review next. But because of the length of this debate I am allowing it more time. The article's current contents are useless. It only gives her name and says that she has a website. That's not asserting any notability. I personally don't know CrystalCherry - I have never heard of her - so I have to take the article at face value. She may well be a really famous actress, but the article doesn't reflect that. So therefore it should be drastically rewritten, or else deleted. Even if it is deleted it can be recreated later with better content. (I also usually view a large number of "keep" votes from new users such as this as a sock puppetry effort, but that may just be cynicism.) — JIP | Talk 18:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article's contents seem to have changed either during the time I wrote my vote or after it. It now includes considerably more information. Still, my comments about this article being soon to be reviewed, and the allegation to sock puppetry, still remain. If this debate is not closed by another admin first, I will review it myself, and consider every user who has only contributed to this debate as a possible sock puppet. The most likely result is "no consenus". — JIP | Talk 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of the information presented in the article 'as-is' checks out. There are no references to this person anywhere online outside the pages she and her spamming friends have created. Whether she is completely made-up, or simply another never-was is irrelevant to me - nothing I have seen convinces me of her notability. --Kurt Shaped Box 18:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --pgk(talk) 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't take offence - she just doesn't (currently) meet the standards for having a Wikipedia article about her. Rd232 talk 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About that[edit]

My daughter and her personal life is not for me to judge. That wasn't the only photo and surely not the most embarassing.

  • Where can I see the rest? Got any of her naked?
 *How Dare you, you pervert.  How dare you? you make me sick.

-annieB

  • I don't believe that photo has anything to do with CrystalCherry, actually. I am pretty sure I've seen it before, a looong time before this pointless "hacked cell phone"-"released pictures" crap. I think the photo looked just enough like Cherry that she "adapted" it as if it was her in the picture, in order to cause more "controversy". That's why user "CrystalCherry" kept adding a huge version of that same photo to the Aaron Carter article. In fact that's where I noticed her first.Vulturell 01:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen to how you talk Vulturell, my daughter was hacked back in june, what you are talking about is moronic. You want to call my daughter a liar so bad, you just don't have any evidence. You should be ashamed. But i doubt you have any. I can't wait until someone with real power and can prevent you from ruinging my daughters article. Futhermore there is no user by the name CrystalCherry, David is "Cherryrain" both of thier nick names mereged. You are sad little man, or woman or whatever.

-AnnieB


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CrystalPlayer[edit]

Seems to be nothing more than self promotion. Also appears to have no real...context? Robbjedi 03:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as advertising. - Sensor 05:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising Tony 21:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Bjones 16:48, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultus Sabbati[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article - a copy-and-pasted excerpt from a book. Delete. (Since I don't know what is the book's copyright status, I am listing it here and not at Copyvio.) - Mike Rosoft 13:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia entry is actually a 'cut and paste' from the 'caduceusbooks-occultartgallery' website (http://www.caduceusbooks.com/occultartgallery/cultus/cultus.html) The Owner of the CaduceusBooks was well aquanited with the founder of Cultus Sabbati. The CS form of Witchcraft has seen a rapid growth in popularity, particularly in the State, despite the early death of the founder Andrew Chumbley. I am not the originator of the Wikipedia entry,nor am I member, but I thought the above info may be of some help.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel McGann[edit]

Article on nn recent British murder victim apparently created as part of a series of contributions around black/Asian men committing murders. [9] I don't want to say "racist" but what's currently in Anthony Walker (a black victim of a racist murder) bothers me. I hope this is not a wider issue. Rd232 talk 18:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

noting that there is a revert war between an anon and various editors about the content that bothered me. See also Talk:Anthony Walker. Rd232 talk 11:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The unfortunate Mr. McGann is entirely non-notable. TheMadBaron 08:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Declaration of interest I'm an interested party, so scrub my vote if that bothers anyone; I have been one of the people attempting to get the writer to moderate his views and contribute under WP:NPOV (without success) and therefore someone who has reverted him and engaged him in (futile) conversation over this and other edits. The writer is now issuing legal threats against others who have reverted him. ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands and thousands of murder victims, and Mr. McGann was one of them. Nothing about the circumstances of his murder, or the attendant publicity make this stand out. Joyous (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a disinterested party. If you are going to delete this article you might as well delete the Anthony Walker story. They are, in essence of the same grain. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.216.95.3 (talk · contribs) 31 October 2005)
The Anthony Walker article was nominated for deletion a while ago (see here) but the consensus was to keep it. We may have to discuss Christopher Yates, Tracie Cullum and Richard Whelan on AfD at some point as well (especially the first of these three) but this is probably not the time or place to do it. ●REDVERS HELLO●EMAIL●DOINGS 10:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually came to this article via your profile revers. I have nothing to do with it at all in terms of interest. I was shocked to see the similarity between this case and the Anthony case. It will be odd to lose this one and yet keep the Walker case, when the two are so paralleled.
The parallel between a man murdered by a burglar in the course of a burglary and a man axe-murdered in the street for racist reasons is less than striking. Rd232 talk 11:06, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Velasco[edit]

nn artist Delete --JAranda | watz sup 18:31, 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, should have been speedied. — JIP | Talk 20:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Needles[edit]

not notable, encyclopedic cohesion | talk 09:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, garage band. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have replaced the AfD tag, which the author removed. Delete Dirty Needles, and rip off their there antics. TheMadBaron 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another band which doesn't meet WP:MUSIC andd this one can't even spell.
  • Delete. Good example of what drugs can do to your brain. --JJay 23:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Speedy Delete. Agree with Merovingian. Stu 02:26, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr K A Jaggar[edit]

NN principal and minor actor. His name in quotation marks gives 88 google hits. Punkmorten 12:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or keep More can be added to this. He is a significant figure in Sydney for public education. And has a number of other achievements. If it is possibily biased this can be solved by by sourcing which can happen.
  • Merge with Sydney Boys High School. TheMadBaron 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. School articles should not contain bios of the principle. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle Tedernst 21:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 20:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ball (2007 film)[edit]

Possible Hoax and WP:NOT a Crystal Ball Delete --JAranda | watz sup 17:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis sounds exaclty like Dragonball storyline and the first season of DBZ The Republican 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would vote keep if I found it in IMDb. But it's not there. According to this Wikipedia mirror, there were rumors about a 2007 movie. To prove it they provide a dead link to IMDb. Punkmorten 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified / referenced. Punkmorten 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been rumours of a live-action DBZ movie for some time, but nothing seems to be happening. Delete as Crystal Ball. Saberwyn 23:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as balls. TheMadBaron 06:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced speculation (as no sources exist). Additionally, someone should find all the references on the individual actor's pages and remove them, as well. --InShaneee 22:35, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Movies (Website)[edit]

The article does not state that the website is notable. Thue | talk 15:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn CLW 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. *drew 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 04:54, 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 20:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entity of Ages (EoA)[edit]

Nonnotable amateur film production company, formed three years ago and now disbanded. Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 03:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Very few hits on google, and those were only bits and pieces on public message boards etc.--Qirex 06:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Apyule 10:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that none of their films were completed. Non-notable. --A D Monroe III 15:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, production companies that make a few shorts with no real impact on the world. - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasfrican[edit]

I believe this is a neologism. I can find no outside references to this word. Joyous (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism with no google hits. Thue | talk 19:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless redirected to Eurasfriaustramerican. squell 21:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. TheMadBaron 13:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Squell, and as part of "War on Portmanteaux". It's also a dicdef. --MacRusgail 13:52, 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...um...*scratches head*. Alright, discounting all IPs and really new users, I count 39 keep, 12 delete, and 19 merge and/or redirect votes. Therefore, I'm going to have to say no consensus on this one (I can't say keep outright, since 39/70 is only about 55%). Robert T | @ | C 05:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzmas[edit]

Keep. This is classic Americana at its best--witty, tongue-in-cheek view of what may eventually become, the undoing of the current administration. Delete - but move to PLAME AFFAIR Very obscure, topic not worthy of Wikipedia Paul Dehaye 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

  • Please indicate which of the deletion criteria you are using. Guettarda 23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Paul Dehaye 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concure, delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.120.97 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2005
  • Keep - 75,000ish Google hits. — ceejayoz talk 23:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, DailyKoscruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With 74,500 google hits it has gone well beyond dKoscruft Guettarda 23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Over 100,000 Google hits now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Over 150,000 Google hits now, and will probably keep growing. Fitzmas has legs and should be kept. 09:05:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Google hits mean exactly jack squat. I honestly don't know why people are using it as a reason to keep this entry. Jinxmchue 14:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Google hits have always been used as a mark of notability; it's up to 163,000 now - that rate of increase if amazong for something that is "very obscure". Guettarda 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please back up your assertion about Google hits being "a mark of notability" with facts and examples, please. At most, a search for the term should redirect to the page for the Plame scandal just as a search for "Gannongate" redirects to the page for Jeff Gannon. Jinxmchue 21:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but move to Plame Affair - Very obscure with no legs over time, but perhaps culturally relevant enough to incorporate into the Plame affair article. - Condorman 23:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would violate the GFDL which requires that we keep all contributions. Guettarda 23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to Guettarda for feedback on viability of merging. Therefore, change vote to Delete. It's not viable as a standalone article. - Condorman 00:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Plame affair and redirect, as proposed on Talk:Fitzmas. --MarkSweep✍ 23:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - real, verifiable, over 74,500 google hits. Guettarda 23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Plame Affair after drastically paring down the text. Thesquire 23:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At most, it is worthy of a mention in the Plame Affair one of the lamest scandals in political history. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even worthy of an entry into Plame Affair. WCC2005 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes the Google test, relates to a prominent news story, and is more relevant than many number other internet memes with self-contained articles on Wikipedia. Fumoses
  • M>e<r>g<e into Plame Affair, per MarkSweep and Thesquire. Information is happiest when it is most completely in context, and this term has ballooned in use among liberals gleefully anticipating turmoil.  BD2412 talk 01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to keep, as the article has grown substantial, folks are selling t-shirts, and I keep running into this term in unexpected places, leading me to think it has legs. Can always be folded back into Plame affair in a few months, if the term recedes.  BD2412 talk 13:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • merge or keep Kappa 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In a year's time, this cute little term will be forgotten by even the people who love it. This entry is nothing more than a vanity piece for Democrat Underground (and the one member in particular). Jinxmchue 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Plame Affair. If it still has legs in six months, break it out as its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.59.134 (talk • contribs) October 24, 2005
  • Delete. Neologism. The word will have its 15 minutes of fame and by this time next year no one will remember it. ♠DanMS 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge Viajero | Talk 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect; this is worth maybe one sentence in the Plame Affair article. MCB 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per MCB. Meelar (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect sounds good to me. TheMadBaron 07:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's claimed that 'Fitzmas' will be forgotten in a year, but this may not be the case. If people in the future refer back to the "Fitzmas indictments" to differentiate them from indictments handed down later in the investigation, the term may live on. Also, right-wing bloggers (NRO's Corner, for instance) have used the term several times themselves. So the meme appears to be a strong one. Neiladri 09:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage Merge into Plame affair and redirect, per Talk:Fitzmas. --Raines 14:46 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- It's a great term that needs its place. Everybody's using it.... get on board! --Jryanlaw 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect It seems minor enough to not warrant its own article (yet) but used often enough that it's worthy of note in the main Plame affair article. --Yekrats 15:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - where is your Fitzmas spirit? Andyluciano 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has been all over the U.S. liberal blogosphere for some time now. More notable than the average pokémon. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the term is utterly forgotten next year, delete it then. Wachholder0 21:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It could be the day our country is saved from fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.81.116 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 October 2005
  • Merge into Plame Affair, name is otherwise a non-notable neoligism.--Sean Black Talk 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have articles for things like dog actors, we can certainly have articles for this. -- Dante 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep as it is spreading and may stay connected for a long time. Look at google and watch as the hits grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.93.46 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 October 2005
  • keep - it obviously has some relevance to contemporary context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.25.176 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 October 2005
  • Keep. What's wrong with keeping a historical record of something after it's no longer current (e.g., Windows 2.0)? We voted to keep an article about a similar ephemeral right-wing neologism: Lost Liberty Hotel. It survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel on the stated basis that it had 50,000 Google hits. Fitzmas now has twice as many. As for merger, this much detail about "Fitzmas" would be clutter in the main Plame affair article, which is currently 106 kb long. The way to preserve this information is to keep it in its own article, with "See also" links on Plame affair and Patrick Fitzgerald. JamesMLane 02:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Guettarda. Eclipsed 02:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - too cryptic - no such thing except in the narrowist of of cliquey slang users Rex071404 216.153.214.94 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but what bit of it is too cryptic to be understood? It seems quite straightforward to me. There are far narrower, cliqueier subjects on Wikipedia than one that fetches 103,000 hits on Google. — ceejayoz talk 04:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel and because of the coverage in a major mainstream publication like National Review. Gamaliel 04:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.59.66 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005
  • Keep; now common in the blogosphere mefi. — goethean ॐ 14:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems most opposition is probably based on neo-con political philosophy of voters, not on the merit of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.68.20 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005
  • Keep - has contemporary significance - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.67.169 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005
  • Weak Keep, this neologism seems to have legs w/ over 100K google matches. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a genuine concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.67.169 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005 (second vote from that IP)Guettarda 18:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep....It's in very wide use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.87.93 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005

Keep--valid political slang.

  • Delete or merge to flame affair.--Dakota 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - receiving press, it got me here! User:robzr
  • Keep - It's used by many people and it is a concept that has struck a cord with the public. ck4829.
  • Keep - in common usage
  • Keep - Leave it in.
  • Merge and Redirect - The term 'Fitzmas' is, like, totally evanescent. Plus, whatever information would go into a Fitzmas article will have to be completely duplicated in 'Plame Affair' anyway. Better to keep it all in a single location. -- 67.161.46.135 01:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, per MCB. It's evanescent, but maybe someday someone will wonder what the hell it's referring to when looking at the historical record. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "Fitzmas" has the same staying power as "Where's the beef?"
  • Keep. An ungraceful merge could ruin the target article, so in reality, keeping this separate is probably better, since it is rather peripheral to the real, serious topic of the investigation. If someone proves me wrong by doing a graceful merge, I won't complain. Unfocused 04:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!** DO NOT DELETE THIS. IT WILL BE VERY SIGNIFICANT!
  • Keep! -- It is a current term, and it could work for liberals or against them (in case fitzmas brings nothing to their tree). It is a term in a moment in time, and it should be included.
  • Keep - There's nothing wrong with it
  • Keep it. It's cute!

The point is to be an encyclopedia not to be censorists and ingore out of ignorance. KEEP.

  • Keep - Even though the word grates my nerves, it has entered the popular lexicon and is even being used by the mainstream media. It's a term that needs a definition readily available on the internet, for future students of this era.
  • Keep it please!

My 11 year old son was asking me today what's the meaning of "Fitzmas". I had to do a better job at it than his Mom did in the morning. We owe him that!!

  • Keep, please. Documentation being generated by various media outlets including the National Review have used the word without a strong definition. Future historians will need a definition and etymology. Just as "Watergate" has to be defined as more than a scandal to someone born in 1978, a future historian born five years from now will need an explanation as to what Fitzmas meant in the context of this event. ~~CSEdwards~~
  • Keep. The term has seen use in printed, broadcast, and electronic media, has a growing number of google hits, and I used the wp entry to learn what it was.
  • KEEP IT and add: the reason for the season is treason!
  • Even Fox News is using the term now. As long as the entry stays more or less politically neutral, I see no need to kill it.
  • Useful for folks who might someday in the future encounter a reference to 'Fitzmas', and need a handy definition. It's a useful citation, and anyone who believes there can be too much information is a bit out-of-place at wikipedia, no?
  • It's a term being used to describe a very real point in history, keep it! No reason not to.
  • It's in use everywhere now. Leave it in.
  • Keep it: It's politically significant.
  • Dan Froomkin wrote about it in the Washington Post. It should stay.
  • Not obscure at all...heard it on MSNBC the other day even. It's hitting the mainstream. Also, too many people are asking about it, so might as well keep it around like an answer to a FAQ.
  • Bold textKeepBold text--Tons of hits, it's a pop culture phenomenon. Besides, other things like lueshi are allowed to stay on Wikipedia, this is much more influential than lueshi.
  • Keep: It now has over 156,000 Google hits, and has been included in stories on MSNBC, Fox News and The Hill. There is no valid reason to delete this entry. 66.63.83.6 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)JSF[reply]
  • Keep: Otherwise where will it be accurately defined? I would recommend different POVs be further defined as part of the definition. Ejl 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a legit phenomenon, and will almost certainly stick around the way political terms tend to, e.g. Teapot Dome, Watergate 66.122.240.37 10:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the amount of argument engendered should provide ample justification on its own.


  • Keep -- This is in the same class as "Saturday Night Massacre" and deserves retaining.
  • Keep! -- It's being used all over the place. I checked here for it the first time I heard it. Traviswastaken 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge and Redirect - this is worth perhaps a line in the entry on the Plame affair. This is a neologism, and while it's worth keeping mention of it somewhere, it's not worthy of its own entry. 192.249.47.8 14:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a neologism which will probably only have ephemeral currency, i.e. it's unlikely people will still be using it after this stage in the investigation is over. If it does attain some sort of lasting currency, like "Where's the beef"? it can be written up at that stage. --Ryano 15:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No one will use the term in three months no matter what the outcome of the investigation is.

Delete- this will burn out just like DSM, Sheehan, Gannon and all the other leftist talking points. Blitzkrieg17 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still talking about them how can you say they've burnt out? Andyluciano 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All three of which have articles. Downing Street memo, Cindy Sheehan, and Jeff Gannon. All are quite detailed, too. If they're your precedent, your vote seems... off. — ceejayoz talk 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Quite detailed' is an understatement. The Cindy Sheehan article is longer than either of the Bill Clinton or the Ronald Reagan articles! 67.161.46.135 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's currently being used in many places. It'll be around a year from now.
  • Keep - The word is flying around everywhere, and Wikipedia was the first place I thought to check on keeping a good current account of its origin and usage, as well as tracking how widespread its adoption has been.
  • Keep--wasn't "Watergate" in the same category as "Fitzmas" in the 70s. Gee, that term didn't last ... Blueboy96 17:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in Plame AffairDaemon8666 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I looked here first as well when it popped up on my forums of interest 140.226.23.177 18:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I spotted this in a debate forum and had no idea what it meant. This was the first place I checked. I'd still be in the dark if not for this entry. --Rethgryn 20:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only if the indictments are successfully prosecuted. If Fitzgerald is successful he will be marked in history and Ftzmas will be a legendary term.
  • Keep - It's too soon to tell whether or not it will "be around in a year". Why not wait and find out? What's the rush to delete? It has appeared in the Washington Post as well as the Huffington Post and the Al Franken show, and is very rapidly expanding in usage as shown by word searches: 13,700 at A9 for you google doubters. As has been noted elsewhere, "Yesterday's Neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." -- Jotter 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! - I always look to wikipedia to keep me current on topics, I am so far out of pop cultrue and don't have time to search a million websites. Is this not what wikipedia is for? If this disappears in a week, delete it then, but hang onto it until fitzmas is over.
  • Keep! - Limbaugh and Hannity are using the term now, it's offically 'crossed over' and has become more than "Very obscure topic"
  • Keep for now. Delete later if it fizzles. "Watergate" would have been AfD at the beginning, but is now an important cultural reference point. Ronabop 21:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Duh!! Not only are there now 161,000 hits in Google (for the record, that's more hits than Tallahassee, Florida has residents), but that's up from approximately zero less than three weeks ago. That's pretty amazing. Only time will tell if it remains relevant, but it's certainly relevant now. --PHenry 21:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - especially after the Economist article about it, I bet that's where the Google searches are coming from
  • Just did a search on Economist.com and there it was! I'd say when THE economics magazine covers something, it's notable. — ceejayoz talk 03:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I heard the term and went looking for it. Wiki allows the etymology of new and dynamic entities to be collected and disseminated. Isn't that part of the charter? OldZeb 00:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perhaps redirect to a more detailed article 68.23.150.75 04:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Any further indictments relating to the Bush administration and the Iraq 'conflict' will be refered to with the same term - and I think there will be many indictments. 217.35.93.233 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Plame affair, or possibly keep. This is very notable, but I doubt enough can be said about it to deserve an article. It can be split back off later if necessary. ~~ N (t/c) 13:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly encyclopedic. Google hits should be used with common sense, not as an absolute indicator of whether an article should be kept or not. Impaciente 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT -- just put it in the page with Plame Affair page

Keep it as addendum to Plame affair. It does not match importance, not will it remain as a cultural reference as "Watergate" or the "Saturday Night Massacre" have.

A great part of wikipedia's importance is that it's where people go to find out about the stuff that Brittanica, etc. do NOT cover. This counts~ it's a small cultural part of our history, and will give future readers an idea what not only what was going on, but the flavor of how people felt about it. Imagaine the poor researcher who comes across it 20 yrs from now! I'd like to think that Wikipedia will still be up and running to inform him that Fitzmas was not a typo or mispronunciation in his original source material.

  • Keep - it's obviously now clearly got a life of it's own and, if it occurs, will have ramifications beyond the outing of valerie plame. sure, it will be obscure one day, but is eventual obscurity reason to delete knowledge? 68.161.7.86 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I saw a reference to this online and wanted to find out what it means, never having heard it before. On Wikipedia I quickly found a concise, unbiased explanation. This is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia can do better than traditional reference materials. 170.35.208.22 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wait until after Fizmas to delete. AaronSw 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect to plame investigation or somewhere relevant. With only 1 indictment handed out and not even for leaking a CIA agent's identity, it seems fitzmas was a bit of a let down. I've only heard the term on lefty blogs talking about the indictments with eager glee, and a few righty blogs mocking the left ones. Another week or so and no one will remember 'fitzmas'. -Viper Daimao 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as you have a page for 'Bennifer', you should keep Fitzmas kwm
  • Keep - just because it was not a massive set of indictments does not make the term any less valid and any less used
  • Keep - It is useful information for those unfamiliar with the term.209.176.128.228 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Plame affair. Not even close to notable enough to have it's own article. —thames 20:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A political term which has been ubiquitous in the blogosphere.--The lorax 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's only a one liner for a late night talk show host. 68.4.214.127 21:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Term is now being used beyond the blogs. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - With Fitzgerald calling another grandjury, and the amount of use in the mainstream media, it will be used for quite a while in the future. --waffle iron 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Wikipedia has many articles of less import. This article might help people understand a current meme. --User:Chad okere Oct 28
  • Keep and please note that I'm a regular Wikipedia contributor and no one "told me to come here" (I followed a link from the article on Fitzgerald). This should absolutely be kept. If Wikipedia is to remain relevant and up-to-the-minute, it needs to be on top of evolving phrases and Internet memes. I've seen this term in several places on the Web in the past few days, and it's entirely possible that people might come to Wikipedia for a definition. No more deletionist nonsense! How many times do we have to reiterate that Wikipedia is not paper? Moncrief 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a great example of how Wikipedia is special and what it's good at. There is no other place that could do this, document an unbiased explanation of a word or concept as it emerges in real time. I think that's unique and it shows what a wiki can do. I'm not a contributor so my comments might not matter. But I'm actually excited about what Wikipedia is turning into. There are more and more examples where Wikipedia is THE source of reference and the only one. [Comment added by User:67.94.56.66]
    • Actually there shouldn't be any examples where wikipedia is the only reference, it is supposed to be a secondary source. If there are no other sources, how can we check that what it says is true (WP:V) ?. Kappa 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable: Over 300,000 Google hits. No need to merge either as it has enough content to stand as its own article. - Mr. Tibbs 06:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I agree that it will be all but forgotten in six months. Eideteker 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for 403,000 Google hits. Agree with Mr. Tibbs. Frankchn 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with "Plamegate" Affair - Useful in context, not much on its own AbrahamFowler 18:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge+Redirect to Plamegate or Move to Wiktionary - As the term is used elsewhere and can be cited (and is according to some here used extensively) it's worth keeping in some form. It will be clear later whether this is worthy of its own entry or not, but certainly the existance and popularity of the term now mean we should keep this information. --Zippy 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. Possibly merge and redirect in the future if the term loses steam. Though I have edited an article or two for Wikipedia, I came to the Fitzmas article and this delete discussion from a link in a CNet news story [11]. For better or worse, Wikipedia is now a major source of information on current popular culture. To this end it offers near instant coverage of new phenomena and generally balanced coverage hammered out by passionate people on both sides of the issue. This is no small thing, even if the articles are less than seamless as a result. --agr 22:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used. --194.94.44.4 14:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This term could and has already become a substitute for "CIA Leak Case." If Wikipedia can hold articles on obscure Kansas City Pitchers like "Chris George" (Search for it if you don't believe me) then Wikipedia can and should hold "Fitzmas"
  • Keep - Now over 717,000 Google hits, numerous mentions in mainstream news, and some fairly extensive merchandizing items... people are talking about putting up their Fitzmas decorations. The term is now considerably more relevant than dozens of others which have been active on Wikipedia for long periods of time... indeed, it seems implausible that this call for deletion would even exist if not for the political nature of the subject. --CBDunkerson 23:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that 929,000 Google hits now... that's growth of 212,000, in less than twelve hours. Meanwhile, "Lost Liberty Hotel" at 37,600 hits, "Troopergate" at 15,200, "Filegate" at 115,000 (referring to at least three different things), "Pardongate" at 13,900, et cetera all remain pages in Wikipedia. --CBDunkerson 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Plamegate Affair as previously proposed. David | Talk 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Plame Affair as a slimmed down mention. It's notable enough for that, but not for its own article. Impi 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Easily notable enough now. Not a dicdef. — brighterorange (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like what Fitzgerald is doing, but the fact is this joke will be old by ... Thanksgiving. Daniel Case 03:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - I don't really know how to parse the information, but someone should look at Language Log's analysis of the development of the neologism in a historical context [12]. It even links to WP! Smmurphy 05:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Language Log's analysis has taken the discussion of this term a bit more academic and insightful --nertzy 06:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now referenced in the Guardian, which brought me here. – Kaihsu 14:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect or Keep; The information should be available somewhere. At the moment, we can't see what sort of long-term implications the situation holds, or what weight the term will carry. Regardless of the number of Google hits, the term is, at the moment, neologistic. The current situation could be flash-in-the-pan, or it could end up being another Watergate. The long-term status of the term and article information are, therefore, very up in the air. However, it seems to me that the term has become ubiquitous enough to warrant the information being available, at least for the present, regardless of political feelings. It wasn't coined here, and it's become culturally notable. Now, while I can well imagine that the specificity of the term may well prevent it from becoming common jargon, it could also grow to encompass other similar phenomena. Part of the beauty of WP is the dynamic ability to incorporate concepts, terms, and events that may have significant historical impact, rather than having to wait for years while the ramifications of an event are weighed, costs are analyzed, articles are written, and the editions published. I would also comment that if there are those who think this should be deleted or not simply out of political spite, they should reexamine their reasoning. SchrodingersRoot 15:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So long as the investigation is ongoing, people will refer to Fitzmas. If more indictments come down, it may well be used to differentiate (as noted somewhere in the morass above). I was happy to be able to quickly find out what Fitzmas was all about by just querying wikipedia. Andrew 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per nom. -Andrew 03:10, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fried (webcomic)[edit]

Delete this non-notable webcomic with an Alexa ranking of 2,915,503. Besides its Alexa rank that's 30 times the limit suggested by Google test, the comic is just slightly more than two years old and the article boasts that "the update schedule of the comic is notoriously irregular." Article gives no information that would distinguish this from any other rarely updated, fairly new website. Article also reads like vanity, which isn't surprising since it's been edited 25 times by Squirminator2k, the self-described "creator and co-writer of Fried." Dragonfiend 19:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is my feeling that by most of the standards regularly expressed on Wikipedia, this comic ought not be described as "notable." Please see User:Snowspinner/Webcomics for a brief outline of the credentials I feel I bring to bear on a discussion of webcomic notablity. In light of this, I ask the closing admin to take my view in to appropriate account in relation to non-subject experts. Snowspinner 22:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 08:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable, etc. -- SCZenz 16:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. I would also recommend the nominator take a look at Psycheverse and Apathy (webcomic). Also note that the webcomic author did in fact try and delete the page by vandalising it. - Hahnchen 19:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons, although I must protest the "No attempt has been made to establish notability" comment. I still don't understand why the ARTICLE itself is seen as a vehicle for establishing notability by some folks: the comic itself is either notable or non-notable, the article is merely written about it. Tedzsee 04:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does help if the article establishes notability, it doesn't have to, but in many cases it should and does. Like mentioning awards, or maybe critical commentary or some sort of notoriety in general. - Hahnchen 13:18, 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. — JIP | Talk 05:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuj[edit]

Neologism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:04, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Game Freaks 365[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "advertisement/self promotion", which isn't a speedy unless it's pure spam which this doesn't appear to be. Article may have other problems, however. -Splashtalk 04:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep with Massive Cleanup The structure is there and there are interesting notes about the site. However I have neither the expertise nor patience to edit the article. Maybe someone, somewhere does and it actually sounds like it could be interesting. Powers of i 04:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alexa ranking of 37,449. Needs lots of work but seems notable. - Sensor 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup then keep google returns 267,000 results I agree with the previous two votes. -- Malo 05:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I agree that there is some notability here, but that does not make it inherently worth having an article on wikipedia. Alexa ranks it at ~37,500 (link), but I think that number is rather unremarkable, and does not automatically suggest that there needs to be a wiki article on it. Contrary to the implicit claims, the growth of the site is stable, neither growing or declining much. Also, I pose these questions: Do we need a page describing a website which one can just as easily visit themselves? Does this website have some kind of notable permiation of online circles or videogame circles? I don't know. I don't think a strong case could be made to keep, and I do think a convincing case could be made to delete. Having said all this, I think it's too close for me to feel comfortable voting, but I just wanted to try to provoke some more critical discussion. Aside from anything else, I think that when in doubt, it should be left. If it does stay, I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, because at the moment it reads somewhere between an advertisement and an 'about us' page which would belong on the actual site (not here) ps. sorry for the length of this comment --Qirex 07:30, 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedily redirected to Walkthrough; the others will be deleted. DS 17:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Game Walkthroughs[edit]

(This afd also covers Game Boy Game Walkthroughs, Pokemon Red Walkthrough and any other page that the creator branches from Game Walkthroughs)

I initially tagged this to be speedied, but the creator removed the tag and his project has since become clear. Basically, this is Wikipedia is not GameFAQs to the extreme! Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:06, 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 06:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers LTD[edit]

Another one incorrectly tagged for speedy as "advertisement/self promotion". -Splashtalk 04:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable enough, Google returns 624 results (I would expect ALOT more for a bias search about a Gaming site) and it feels completely unencyclopedic. -- Malo 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, sorry about adding the speedy delete tag, I didn't have time to create an AFD nomination. — Wackymacs 08:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:38, 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 06:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Coyote[edit]

Article is vanity information. - Korpios 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Korpios 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not vanity. It's not even really about Ginger Coyote. However, it is incredibly badly formatted, and it is copyvio of garageband.com. Delete. TheMadBaron 11:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nomination. Vanity. Ad. Copyvio. Not to mention darn hard to read. I'm not sure I saw a period in the entire article. This article is just awful, plain an simple. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--is this an ad? A vanity page? Who cares? What a mess. Devotchka 00:24, 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 06:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giugiu[edit]

Non-notable pet bio Tom harrison 21:03, 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 06:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Outreach[edit]

Outrageously POV unsourced stub from an open proxy vandal. This must have slipped by the RC patrol a few weeks ago. The only reason I'm not speedying it is the slight chance that someone who cares enough and is familiar with the topic can pull a rabbit out of this hat and somehow write a decent article. --Fire Star 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Fire Star 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don’t know whether the Gospel Outreach organization is notable, but there is nothing in this article that can be saved. If someone can write a NPOV article and there is notability, it can be re-created. ♠DanMS 04:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DanMS. TheMadBaron 07:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:16, 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. — JIP | Talk 06:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenvangelical[edit]

Non-notable, very few (2 from and they're from the Daily Show) google hits, recently constructed religion Broken S 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, not notable, crystal ball, and, since they want 1/4 of your money, advertising. TheMadBaron 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I got one unique google hit. It's just a lame (personally irritating and mildly offencive) joke which no-one has ever heard of. --Qirex 06:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Qirex. --Apyule 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Don't DeleteGranted, I put it in there, but of course it doesn't have many entries in google - it is only 24 hours old!. The Tithe is .25%, not 25%. At least 850 of us have heard of it, we were at poptech. We learned of the "Daily Show" guy after we googled it. --User:mdaitzman 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as part of "War on Portmanteaux" --MacRusgail 16:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete link entry under New_religious_movements and Environmental_movement. The Daily_Show reference was not a joke but interview with Pastor Richard Cizik of the National_Association_of_Evangelicals who argues for the Right_Wing to embrace Environmentalism. The Tithe is of a non-commercial nature. Religions often fuse concepts like Uni[fied/Sec]tarian, or Scient[ific/Ont]ology, so Green[MovementE]vangelical has precedents. --ProfessorAI
    • User's second edit. Broken S 01:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per TheMadBaron. -Nameneko 05:45, 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 merge with Hampton School. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton School Social League[edit]

Nonnotable soccer league.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Robert T | @ | C 20:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hbaidi yaqob[edit]

Completing unfinished nomination by Filceolaire. No vote.  BD2412 talk 01:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this Italian league football player is not notable enough to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on his club (even the Italian wikipedia article) then he is not notable enough. (Sorry about the unfinished nomination)Filceolaire 23:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because his name's Yaqob Hbaidi. TheMadBaron 08:29, 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 08:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HBO slogans[edit]

A list of slogans, of which I question the verifiability of some (several slogans fail the Google test, although at least two slogans could be verified). Also, the author has also created similar articles that were speedied today as nonsense. We probably should salvage anything that can be verified and place them in the Home Box Office article, but the article as it currently exists should go. Wcquidditch | Talk 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Wcquidditch | Talk 21:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into the HBO article. 23skidoo 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to verify and merge anything. This is cruft. TheMadBaron 08:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I've found other similar articles from this user and this user. ErikNY 16:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Weak Merge per nom --Rogerd 04:42, 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 keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hegardt[edit]

  • Tagged as a speedy, reason given was "non-notable family", which is not one of the speedy delete criteria. Howver This page does not look to me like a very useful addition to wikipedia, and the notability is at best doubtful IMO. Weak delete. DES (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the family were notable, it would be unusual to have a page named for them (note that Kennedy, for example, is just a disambiguation page). Since the only claim to notability relates to Christian Bernhard Hegardt ("a diplomat and undersecretary of state, was raised to the nobility in May 11, 1818") the article should be named Christian Hegardt.... if he could be considered suitably notable, which seems doubtful. TheMadBaron 07:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable because the family is of verifiable Swedish nobility. See De la Gardie (linked to from List of Swedish noble families). --Anetode 08:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are nearly 3,000 families on the List of Swedish noble families - should we have articles on all of them? Is everyone in Sweden notable? TheMadBaron 08:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hegardts, like the De la Gardies, include notable members. Christian Bernhard Hegardt was reputedly the undersecretary of state. --Anetode 08:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's one notable member.... can you name another? TheMadBaron 08:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not being able to decipher the google hits for "Josias Hegardt" (probably genealogical references), no. However, as you suggested, the article could be rearranged to be about Christian Hegardt. (By the way: Kennedy family :-) ). --Anetode 09:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The family has been considered significant enough for there to be an article about it in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, the Swedish equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography. Josias Hegardt (merchant and industrialist, Mayor of Malmö, and Member of the Riksdag) and Peter Hegardt (20th century military) each have fuller biographical articles of their own. There is nothing unusual with articles on families in general reference works. Many (perhaps most) of the 3,000 noble families cited above need to be looked-up in specialized genealogical works, but I think the ones represented in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon deserve inclusion in Wikipedia as well. Uppland 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand to include biogs uncovered by Uppland. TheMadBaron 09:29, 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 all. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Things, All Quest, Toot Oriole Quest[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Three related articles by the same contributor, apparently a contextless game guide of some sort. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are horribly incomplete guides for Kingdom of Loathing. Guides don't belong on Wikipedia anyways. -Nameneko 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a how to guide. Plus, all of those red links scare me. --Apyule 11:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Apyule --MacRusgail 17:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I was going to suggest trasnwikiing until I saw the state of the pages. - Mgm|(talk) 21:10, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Igames[edit]

Does not seem notable enough for an article, reads like an advertisement/promotion. Wackymacs 08:13, 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 keep with move. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Squash Players[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:09, 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily kept, as the nomination was withdrawn. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InvisionFree[edit]

non encylopedic, advertising JPotter 01:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination reasons --JPotter 01:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. "invisionfree" gets two million Google hits, and I've definitely encountered it before. The Alexa traffic rank is also a hefty 775, meaning it's in the top 1000 sites on the web in hits according to Alexa's monitoring. Notable enough, considering we've far less notable internet sites on here. — ceejayoz ★ 03:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup per Ceejayoz. There is also a worthwhile NPOV discussion going on intermittently at Talk:InvisionFree that I beleive will make this article better over time.Powers of i 03:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily. It needs to be improved, especially about POV. I would say almost any forum using it as a free host, is likely not worthy of an article. But InvisionFree itself, seems to easily warrant an article. --rob 04:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination as per the reasons above, particular the edits made by Ceejayoz on the talk page to remove most of the non encylopedic information. --JPotter 05:14, 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 merge with Jarvis Cocker. I'll slap the tag on it. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Cocker's Stage Invasion[edit]

A single incident such as this is, IMO, not worthy of its own article, and this incident is already covered in brief under both Jarvis Cocker and Pulp (band) - delete. I don't believe that a redirect would be of any benefit, as anyone searching for details would surely search under "Jarvis Cocker". If it is felt that the coverage under the Jarvis Cocker article is inadequate, this information should be entered there, not here. CLW 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect. More information here than in Jarvis Cocker article. --Stjarna 16:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I remember this better than their songs. Should be retitled though.--MacRusgail 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, it was memorable, but does that really mean that it warrants its own article? ABBA winning Eurovision was just as memorable, but I don't think a The results of the voting for Eurovision 1974 when ABBA won it deserves its own article, just a mention within the ABBA article. Also, I think it would be impossible to give this a suitable name - the list of possibilities would be almost endless. CLW 18:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Stjarna's comments. This is probably the most well-known event in the career of Pulp or Jarvis Cocker to the public in general, and as it contains more info than the Pulp or Jarvis Cocker entries I believe the content is valuable. Powers of i 20:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jarvis Cocker. Capitalistroadster 23:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Kappa 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect; I can't imagine this incident being worth more than a sentence or two in the main article. MCB 04:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Take Sokal Affair as an example. That incident, a hoax too, deserves a separate entry from Alan Sokal. Why not this entry? Because Cocker is a pop star but Sokal's a scientist? --- Lee 11:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC +8)
Note - This comment attempts to give the impression of having been added by a signed-in user, but was actually an anon comment by user with IP 143.89.188.4. CLW
Reply - Thanks for pointing that out and sorry for giving you such an impression. But I wonder if I should address myself as "anonymous" or use my name. -- Lee 2:35, 31 October 2005
  • Keep; I think that neither the Pulp or Jarvis Cocker articles go into enough detail on this incident. tom, 16.04, 31 October 2005
Note - Another anon user (IP 86.132.227.141) formatting his/her comment to look as if it's being left by a signed-in user. CLW 18:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge but No redirect. A merge is acceptable, but I do not see the point of a redirect here. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgensen[edit]

The entire content is Often used in english for the Norwegian last name Jørgensen. This does not seem encyclopedic. Joyous (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. "Jørgensen" is a fairly common surname, but even common surnames don't merit articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there was an article for Jørgensen, this should be a redirect. Since there isn't, delete per nomination. TheMadBaron 08:41, 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 Delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kae Masuda[edit]

vanity Flapdragon 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Is this person really notable? Looks like vanity to me. Flapdragon 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This artist IS notable actually. Why remove something just because YOU don't know about it? Keep this article please. I am certain it will be expanded. Some people are far too quick to censor.

  • Then you won't have any trouble establishing that in your article. Why not expand it yourself, instead of leaving it to others? So far, her notability is certainly not obvious. A phrase like "She is considered to be an exciting new talent, and art critics are keeping a keen eye on her progress", apart from being far too vague and approving to be encyclopaedic, gives the impression this person has yet to make her mark. Hard facts would be better. Flapdragon 02:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than the anonymous comment above, no attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User: Saintjohnny Keep as long as it is expanded on. Notability is not an issue in this case, as the artist has had work exhibited and this has been sourced. Disagree strongly with Flapdragon. That said, more info would be useful.

  • If you think it should be deleted unless expanded, as you say, then you don't disagree strongly at all. I'm willing to believe this person is worth having but no notability has been demonstrated yet, which shouldn't be difficult if they are really notable. Just "having had work exhibited" isn't really enough. We can't include every singer that has performed in public, or every actor who has ever trod the boards. Flapdragon 16:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saintjohnny As long as a performer / artist / entertainer has done some kind of public, professional work, they can and should be entitled to an entry on Wikipedia. I always thought that this wonderful resource was supposed to be absolutely democratic and open to all. With all due respect, I do feel that you have jumped on this entry and wish to impose a very narrow, very unhelpful set of values, which in my opinion, are at odds with the values of Wikipedia itself. Of course there has to be notability, but a quick surf on Google should confirm that this artist is indeed notable. That said, I will be happy to amend the article (and it is not mine) if you have some constructive suggestions on how to do so. Lesser known personalities have a right to be included too!

  • We agree again -- notability is an issue. Even when space is not an issue, we have to draw the line somewhere with the "lesser personalities". The "democratic and open to all" part refers to contributing to Wikipedia, not being in it! Why should performers and artists be treated differently to other professions? An artist is not notable just for being an artist, any more than a teacher, builder or website designer. There's nothing personal about it; articles must establish that the subject is worth including. I have nothing against this individual, I only asked for some evidence that they have done enough to appear in an encyclopaedia, and there is still none in the article. Yes, that will be to some extent subjective, but there are some guidelines at WP:BIO. It would be great if the creator of the article or someone else who knows about it would just take a little time to make this into a worthwhile article. Flapdragon 17:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saintjohnny You didn't really address my point. Again, give me some guidelines on what you think should be in there, and I will use them as a basis to expand on this article. What do you want? Your criteria for being "worthy" of an entry in an encyclopaedia are frankly ridiculous. Take a random surf on Wikipedia and have a look at some of the entries under any profession you care to name. Or any subject for that matter. It is most definitely not your role in this to start imposing what should or should not be there, although I absolutely respect your right to raise the objection. I really do struggle to see what your problem is with the entry. I have verified for myself that this artist is a professional in her field, and has had her work exhibited at a recognised venue, by an established and known gallery. Again, please search Google. Your problem seems to be that she is a non entity, not worth (in your view) anybody reading about. Well firstly, I think it is very unhealthy for one person to start deciding what others read, and secondly, your objection has no basis anyway. So, once again, please tell me what you think should be under this entry, and I will endeavour to provide you with it.

  • Please read the guidelines already quoted. It may be your opinion that "As long as a performer / artist / entertainer has done some kind of public, professional work, they can and should be entitled to an entry on Wikipedia", but Wikipedia does not agree with you. We are still waiting for some evidence of notability. Flapdragon 02:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, google has 16 uniquish hits that aren't wikipedia... -Andrew 03:15, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karjalanpaisti[edit]

recipe Zondor 12:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Zondor 12:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Or transwiki -- Zondor 12:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 12:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change vote to keep due to rewrite --Qirex 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just a recipe at the moment, but there could well be more to say. Can anyone make it more encyclopaedic? Flapdragon 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AngryBlackMan/talk
    16:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've rewritten the article to make it a bit more encyclopaedic (see diff here). Will the closing admin please note that the votes above refer to the previous version of the article, which was nothing but a recipe (and probably a copyvio as well). - ulayiti (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff. Surely no-one could take exception to the article as it now stands. Keep. Flapdragon 17:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Punkmorten 18:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. TheMadBaron 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the food, it's disgusting. No, really, one of those mystery meat dishes my high school excelled at. --Agamemnon2 21:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ulayiti's rewrite. Well done. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Karelian hot pot since I don't believe "Karjalanpaisti" is widely used in English. Kappa 02:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Good job! --MCB 03:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. I love learning stuff through AfD articles... makes hanging around here doing the dirty work worthwhile. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 04:12, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. DES (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Mullan[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. Created by subject of article. — ceejayoz ★ 02:58, 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 (copyvio). -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leela Bandaranaike Peries[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:10, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning OS[edit]

A non-notable hobby project. Thue | talk 10:40, 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 10:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Li'l Buck[edit]

Non-notable band. Google turns up one incoming link total. — ceejayoz talk 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't appear to meet WP:music. Allmusic.com has no information on them. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 07:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC--Rogerd 04:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeared in Chart magazine's Top 40 charts in 1997. Connected to a more easily Googled band, The Blue Seeds. Meets my keep line on those criteria. Bearcat 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of a link to back that up? — ceejayoz talk 00:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Chart's past charts aren't searchable from chartattack.com, but they do appear on the following station-by-station charts gleaned from Google (and Google doesn't even index these very well):
[14]
[15]
[16]
Which may not be concrete enough for anybody else's proofline, but given the lack of a fully searchable chart database it's about as good as can be managed. Bearcat 19:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those appear to be college campus charts. Doesn't establish notability per WP:MUSIC, IMO. — ceejayoz talk 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They're the raw data lists on which Chart -- a Canadian music magazine which does fit the WP:MUSIC criteria -- compiles its monthly national chart. So I don't see how they can be held to a different standard than the end product that they directly result in. Bearcat 19:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Chart may be notable, but that doesn't mean everything they ever mention is. — ceejayoz talk 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it does mean that any band that successfully ranks in their chart qualifies, per WP:MUSIC's qualification that has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country is a sufficient criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you want to make the argument that three citations from the raw uncompiled chart data aren't sufficient even after factoring for the fact that the magazine doesn't provide a searchable database of its past charts, I'm fine with that, but I won't agree that the magazine's regular monthly chart fundamentally fails to meet the stated criterion. Bearcat 22:38, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of news web sites[edit]

  • Delete This list is unmanageable and as a result will miss websites. As a result, it will be POV. Additionally, there isn't much point in having such a list. Tony 19:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWould become too large, can't list them all. Too many lists anyway.-Dakota 19:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think as long as it didn't include local news affiliates it wouldn't be that difficult to manage. --Holderca1 20:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a web directory. Unmaintainble and liable to be POV. chowells 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like List of websites only more specific. Kappa 01:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per chowells. MCB 04:13, 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 10:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who are nearly centenarians[edit]

See also the debate on List of people who are nearly supercentenarians, also on AfD. A list of people who are nearly notable (and I don't consider centenarians notable) is, to me, a bad thing, setting aside the fact that this list is pretty unmaintainable and often difficult to verify or complete. Delete. Lord Bob 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable in any way. chowells 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list of potentially millions - nay billions if we stretch "nearly" - of people. Rd232 talk 19:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but make sure it's fully deleted. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it was "List of notable people who..." then maybe, but it would impossible to include everyone in the world that fit that the criteria for that list. --Holderca1 20:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Centenarians are not inherently notable. Even if they were, all that would justify would be articles about individual centenarians. A list is a separate matter, which requires answers of "yes" to two questions: "Should this list be compiled?" and "Can this list be compiled according to an objective, non-arbitrary, and binary criterion?". Answer to the first question is "no", which makes the second question irrelevant. The list doesn't belong, delete it. The Literate Engineer 21:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Pointless list. 23skidoo 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable list. Xoloz 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. As pointless as other listcruft. Why not start a list on people who are considering hair plugs??? Stu 02:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Literate Engineer. Chick Bowen 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this would be sufficiently notable if the only persons on the list were certain to become centenarians by the time I finish typing this sentence (in which case, there's no use for the list anymore).  BD2412 talk 03:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, preposterous listcruft. MCB 04:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Nearly" is a relative term. It might as well be "List of people who are not centenarians". Ridiculous. TheMadBaron 05:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivia list, being nearly 100 years old doesn't make you notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - there are thousands (millions?) in this category. It would also be unmaintainable having to be updated once a member of the list hit 100. --MacRusgail 13:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly defined, and there's no prizes 97 not out. Flowerparty■ 16:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Unlike the absurd list of people who are nearly supercentenarians this one is supposed to be restricted to people who merit inclusion based on their accomplishments,and it serves to keep people out of the over-bloated Centenarian article until they belong there.I think it was created to take some people with overestimated ages out of that article.Obscure entries should be deleted,but the list itself shouldn't.--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 19:35, 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 merge to Bobby Fischer. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess[edit]

Does this list serve a purpose? Should we also create lists of all people who have beaten Garry Kasparov or Anatoly Karpov in chess? Fred-Chess 22:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why yes it does serve a purpose. It tells about everyone who has beaten one of the greatest chess players in chess. I find it informative and useful. Jobe6 23:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were only a few names it might be notable for that reason, but this is a lengthy list. In a pinch maybe merge with Bobby Fischer. 23skidoo 23:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Bobby Fisher article. Stu 02:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Bobby Fischer. MCB 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Bobby Fischer. --Condorman 04:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list —Wahoofive (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. No redirect necessary. TheMadBaron 08:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This kind of stuff was considered interesting enough for a book to be devoted to the subject, a collection of the 61 games Fischer lost in championship chess (since 1958 i think). It was called How to Beat Bobby Fischer and was written by Edmar Mednis. Not entirely sure about the notability of that book, if we get an article on that book some time this list should probably redirect there, but at the moment we don't have one. Whether this belongs in an encyclopedia however is another matter. Neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I seem to remember that book! If it is the book I have in mind then it was some introduction to chess, nothing remarkable, and Bobby Fischer's name was on there only to promote sales. That fact is actually important. His name was used not because he was an excellent player, it was because he was well-known and notorious for his eccentricities. Are we going to have n "Lists who have beaten $NOTORIOUS_PERSON at $GAME", as in "List of supermodels more famous than Naomi Campbell", or "List of people who beat Mike Tyson"? Pilatus 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it was a really a book collecting all the games Fischer lost in championship play. I think you might be thinking about Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, yes that book is truly unremarkable. Didn't learn much chess from that one... Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to to Bobby Fischer. The mere list of names is irrelevant. From the chess-playing point of view, if the aforementioned book includes analysis of why Fischer lost in these cases, it could give relevant information about his play style. - Skysmith 10:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see my reasoning above. Pilatus 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bobby Fischer. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand above comments like "If there were only a few names it might be notable for that reason, but this is a lengthy list. In a pinch maybe merge with Bobby Fischer." Isn't the fact that it's a nicely long list a reason not to merge or delete it, since it's not a mere stub? If it had, say, a hundred names on it, I'd understand wanting to delete it because it's overlong and uninteresting, or if it had only ten names or so on it, I'd understand wanting to merge it into Bobby Fischer, but the mergists in this case confuse me terribly—if the information should be on Wikipedia at all, why clutter up an already long biography page by adding it, rather than just linking to it? The 46 items currently on the list seems like the ideal length for a list page, neither too short to merit a distinct article nor too long to be easily navigable. If anything, rather than deleting some interesting and valuable information, I'd say expand—provide specific information on how, why, and under what circumstances each person won, since half the reason to use lists like these instead of categories are to hollow specific detailing of each item on the list. The exact same holds true for List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess: expand and clarify, don't delete. -Silence 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, to Bobby Fisher. On second thought, merging would make a big mess, Change vote to Keep, but clean up, expand, then move to something like Bobby Fisher chessplaying history -Andrew 03:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge. Merging would in my opinion be a terrible choice. The list would be like a carnuncle in the nice article Bobby Fisher. I have a slight preference for keep above delete, but most important to me is that the list is not merged into the main article, which is already over the "traditional maximum length" of 32 kB. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. Merging would be the worst of all worlds, much more harmful than deletion. I think we should consider, though, expanding this into a more general article of specifically analyzing Fischer's chess career in detail, since if we had an article like that, it would be a nice place to merge this into. Likewise, a general article for in-depth analysis of Kasparov's records might be the best place to incorporate List of people who have beaten Garry Kasparov in chess into. However, making such articles would take some effort and research, so we should keep these articles where they are now until we do have someplace acceptable to merge them into. Or go with my earlier suggestion of just trying to expand the current articles significantly. -Silence 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is one of those rare instances when a list nominated on AFD is not a bad one. Items are easily verifiable per WP:V; the construct is neutral, per WP:NPOV; inclusion to the list rests on a simple question with a binary yes/no answer - you have either beaten Fischer at chess or you haven't, there is no need for subjective, non-NPOV decisions over inclusion. Merging this into an article would damage it, as has been pointed out by Silence. encephalon 01:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of traffic circles in New Jersey[edit]

This list contains about half of the 67 traffic circles that New Jersey is infamous for.

While the history behind those traffic circles is important - it's amongst the most densely settled states and boasts more paved roads per area than any other state, thus experiments in traffic engineering were likely made here -, an incomplete list of individual road (mis)features, most of which have been converted due to safety concerns, appears pointless. Pilatus 17:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 18:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' this list of infamous traffic circles.--Nicodemus75 21:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, part of the history of traffic engineering. Kappa 02:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the list is incomplete, the solution is to make it less so, not delete it. If completeness were a good standard, there would be comparatively few articles on Wikipedia. Besides, there's a more complete list in the comments. Those listed are mainly those notable enough to be named, and more are added as those familiar with them add named circles that have been overlooked. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this absurd red-link farm of an article. Denni☯ 02:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I think knowing about these is important. But do they really need to all be listed. A few of the more important ones already have articles. Is that enought? If the ones without articles today were changed to a bolded entry without a link, my vote would change to a Weak Keep. Vegaswikian 05:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only two of them have articles (the other blue links are redirects), and I fail to see how traffic circles are notable. Do we want to see a list of roundabouts in Skelmersdale? No thanks. TheMadBaron 06:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; these are local landmarks. --SPUI (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How can things "being eliminated", "defunct", and being passed by be notable landmarks? -- Corvus 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're more than a little notorious, even in memory, and are important to the history of traffic engineering. New Jersey's roads were once known for them as much as for anything else, and even where they have been eliminated or bypassed strong traces of them often remain in defaced or vestigal form. Articles on individual circles make that clear: I've added aerial photos in the cases where I can positively identify them and it's surprising how much of even heavily modified circles are still evident. They may even still be known locally by the old name in many cases. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That actually proves my point. Mentioning Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham raises eyebrows; mentioning the Airport Circle in Newark does so only because one thinks of the this being yet another roundabout in NJ. It's the lot of them that is noteworthy, not the individual road feature. As far as them being local landmarks, I hope there won't be n Lists of named intersections in $TOWN, this is an encyclopedia, not a map in words. Pilatus 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not noteworthy. MONGO 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good list related to traffic engineering. Unfocused 04:03, 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. — JIP | Talk 10:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Borden's maid[edit]

Minor legal theory about the Lizzie Borden case. Nominating under WP:NOT a publisher of original thought Saberwyn 23:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. see nomination. Saberwyn 23:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not original thought. Kappa 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not original, then the article ought to cite its sources. The ones this article cites don't seem to check out. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing admins please only count my votes as "keep" if sources are found. Thanks for the research Dpbsmith.Kappa 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change vote to delete as unverifiable. Kappa 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, unless good verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of VfD. The sources cited do not check out. Does Brown even have a law school? I couldn't find one on the Brown site. No hits in a search on the Brown University site for "Andrea Champell" (nor, assuming a misspelling, for "Andrea Campbell"). Only Google hits on "Andrea Champell" are to copies of this article. No hits on "Lewis Brooks" on the BC college website. Only Google hits on combination of exact phrases "Lewis Brooks" "Professor of Law History" are to copies of this article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC) P. S. No, Brown has no law school. Roger Williams University, right on the home page of its website, says that its Ralph R. Popitto Law School is "the only law school in Rhode Island."[reply]
  • Delete and my God do it soon! The matter of the Borden murders should be covered on Wikipedia, but not this speculation! (Victoria Lincoln is rolling over in her grave!) Stu 02:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is an article in the March 2005 edition of The Massachusetts Law Review, then this can be verified, and the article merged with Lizzie Borden. TheMadBaron 07:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have email queries in at the Massachusetts Law Review and the Boston Public Library's reference desk. No replies yet. Another search that gives only hits on this Wikipedia article is "lewis brooks" "lizzie borden". An important article about Lizzie Borden published over six months ago in a major law review should have attracted some notice. However, the contributor is so sloppy about spelling that there's always the chance that "Lewis Brooks" is a misspelling. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not merge unless independently verified. Gamaliel 07:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have received a reply from a contact at the Massachusetts Bar Association, publishers of the Massachusetts Law Review, as follows:
You asked about a mention of Lizzie Borden in the Massachusetts Law Review (below).
The MLR is mainly organized and cited by volume and page number. "79 Mass. Law Rev. 135" would be page 135 of volume 29 of it, for example. We do note the year and (intended) season on the cover (e.g. "Fall 2000") and each issue has an issue number on the cover (e.g. "Volume 80, No. 3"). The month an issue is mailed doesn't get noted, so there is no specific "March 2005" issue.
I did do a quick search on recent issues, and there doesn't seem to have been any mention of Lizzie Borden. There were some old mentions from the MLR. I've attached a screen picture of the results. Can you give me some more context for the mention?
I did notice a 1999 Massachusetts Bar Association Lawyers Journal article that mentions an attorney from a firm involved in the case, and the question of the expiration of the obligation of client confidentiality.
Dpbsmith (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it interesting that this article never once mentions Bridget Sullivan (the maid) by name. Doesn't seem logical that an article about Bridget (who Lizzie referred to as Maggie - source Florence King, One WASP's Family) would at least call her by name? Stu 01:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just found another Law Professor from a "Brown University" - it is here:
http://www.law.suffolk.edu/faculty/directories/faculty.cfm?InstructorID=22
I don't know if that legitimizes Andrea Champell any or not, I still can't find any reference to that particular name. But there does appear to be a legitimate "Brown University" Law degree.
I don't think so. He is a Professor of Law at Suffolk University who got his BA from Brown. His legal degree, the JD is from Georgetown, which has a famous law school. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All this is interesting, but back to the article. Does it merit a stand alone entry? Are the sources legitimate? Can the information be verified? Should it stand alone or be merged into Lizzie Borden's article IF the sources are legit? Stu 20:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources are not legitimate and the information cannot verified. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 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 11:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luna class starship[edit]

This is not an offical class of starship in Star Trek and it has not appreared to my thinking in any books. The Refrence to the USS Titan is canon but however no class name has ever be introduced with it. This Article should be deleted. Aeon 23:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete V/M !
    00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep According to the article, it was the winner of a design competition for the books and was used in the Titan books (as the main ship of the novels, commanded by Will Riker). Though I'm aware the books are not strictly considered ST canon by Paramount, they're still official, and as major publications from a major publisher are worthy of being covered anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appear in major publications from a major publisher. The article should clarify how canonical they are. Kappa 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The published books are NOT considered canon by Paramount. There for this entry should be deleted They have made many statements saying that the books are not official or even considered canon. Also published books are not major publications. Major Publications are more like the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Companions. The Published Paperbacks and Hard Covers have never been considered a major publication as several of them have been contradicted by the TV Shows and by Official Sources. 63.207.248.188 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge non-speculative content of article with List of Starfleet ship classes --Anetode 07:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not relevant to an encyclopaedia. Doesn't even exist in a fictional universe. --Bucephalus talk to me 10:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge into Star Trek Titan, with an emphasis on merging the info about the design contest. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether or not the class is canon (and it's not) to Star Trek, it is canon for the Star Trek: Titan series of books. The information and image provided regarding the competition are accurate and I believe at least some of the history and stats provided are confirmed in the Titan novels. The article does need to be cleansed of conjectural info and it needs to be made clear that it is not canon as far as Paramount are concerned (and as such, has no place on the ships list), but the information provided in the Titan novels and by S&S Inc. means that this article is perfectly valid given the all-encompasing nature of Wikipedia. -Hayter 15:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am quite happy that Wikipedia includes established but non-canonical elements of major fantasy universes. [17]. Wikipedia Is Not a Place To Insist On Solely Canonical Interpretations Of Other Peoples Fantasies. The Land 19:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just mention books are not established canon. They're still major publications and deserve being included. Merge if we've got the book. - Mgm|(talk) 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Star Trek Titan, which is short enough to accomodate this; wouldn't be opposed to keeping it either. CanadianCaesar 20:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at most...merge. Paramount does not get to dictate others contributions towards the reality of a fictional univers. If this class starship is appearing in stories published, then it seems to be a notable entity. I'll let the debate about "Star Trek canon" alone.—Gaff ταλκ 22:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been in books, and is therefore somewhat "official". I draw the line between published and fanfic, not between canon and non-canon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Sjakkalle. Carioca 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem with including non-canon material is that Paramount don't make any attempt to maintain consistency with their licensees. So anything in the books can be contradicted by any canon series/movies that may appear from Paramount, or other non-canon licensees. What do we do when someone else publishes a book about starships and gives totally different information for the Luna class than the Star Trek Titan novels? AlistairMcMillan 08:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that according to the Star Trek card game, Riker's USS Titan is a completely different class. The novel publishers felt no need to maintain consistency with the card game. This isn't like the Star Wars expanded universe where the licensees do attempt to maintain consistency. AlistairMcMillan 08:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledge both references, and note that there are conflicts. The Pokemon articles have long acknowledged the conflicts between the games, anime, and manga, if you'd like to see an example of dealing with multiple conflicing continuities. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 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 14:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maineventz[edit]

Not notable, the google results I get all seem to be forums with that user name. I still haven't found any results regarding him. Allmusic.com returns no results. I can find no matching citeria of WP:MUSIC -- Malo 05:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Apyule 10:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. "Maineventz"+"rapper" gets only 19 unique google hits, including shameless promotions as "future legend". --A D Monroe III 15:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Total vanity page. Devotchka 00:35, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as non-notable, though technically he does make a claim of notability ("Grand Prime Emperor of the Universe and its Surroundings") :). Thue | talk 09:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Itzcoatl Quintanilla Nava[edit]

Obviously created as a joke. Superm401 | Talk 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense - cohesion | talk 08:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the Grand Prime Emperor of the Universe. Delete the imposter. TheMadBaron 08:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for vanity. -- SoothingR 09:36, 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 KEEP as rewritten by User:Meelar. — JIP | Talk 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing in schools[edit]

  • Delete per nomination. The article has no encyclopaedic merit, contains only a loose definition and a small list of schools in the Victoria, Australia area. Remy B 06:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was a whole fuss in the media over here about this, but even so, the article currently there is not worth keeping. Saberwyn 07:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crud, it's even got the wrong kind of marketing! The whole fuss I was thinking of was over a school posting a sign saying "Proudly Sponsored by *local* McDonald's". I think what's actually going on here is a bit of a whinge about how some private schools are more about making money through insane fees than education. Saberwyn 09:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I live in Melbourne, and I havent heard about any of this in the media, so it doesnt even seem to be a topical issue. Remy B 10:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I don't see how a school having a motto constitutes marketing, or how it "distracts from a school's primary responsibility to its students". If there's a point to this alleged debate, the article fails to make it. TheMadBaron 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am sure that an article could be made about marketing in schools or even about marketing of schools. However, this article fails to do either. I would be happy to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article would need to have a complete rewrite to be acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Fix, rather than delete. There is definitely enough for an article on this topic. The Land 19:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing that after this article is deleted. Equally, there's nothing that guarantees the article will be 'fixed' if it's kept. Keep as fixed. --Last Malthusian 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as title of article does not match the content, and the content is unencyclopedic per Remy B and Saberwyn. I am open to reconsidering my vote if the content is changed to discuss the promotion of commercial products in schools. --Metropolitan90 00:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the first time today ;) Renata3 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my rewrite--this is a clearly notable topic, with widespread public concern (especially on the political left; see e.g. this article in Adbusters). I've rewritten the article to be about the actual practice--it's still stubby, but will expand. Meelar (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid subject, and reasonably well written although I am unsure of how neutral this can get. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. TheMadBaron 09:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original author has reverted Meelar's version, which I have restored, and created Marketing of schools as a distinct article. Confusing, this. The Land 10:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very confused as to why another article (Marketing of schools) has been created when Marketing in schools is still be debated for deletion. I can't see any reason why the 'Marketing of schools' article shouldnt be marked for deletion as well, as I put that same text up for deletion when it was found in 'Marketing in schools'. If someone rewrites an article to save it from deletion, the last thing we want is for the unsuitable text to be dumped into a near-identically named article. Remy B 11:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mainly did it to stop someone reverting the original article to the mis-named version again. Feel free to nominate Marketing of schools as well. Frankly I think there's space for both, though IMV marketing of schools is borderline while marketing in schools is a definite Keep. The Land 17:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the copy at marketing of schools, but delete this one, as it is not about marketing in schools. A great article could be written about that topic, but this isn't it; it's about something else. An article about marketing in schools could cover, perhaps, schools getting textbooks, sports equipment, etc, with name brands all over/in them because the schools can't afford those things otherwise. It's a common phenomenon. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is continually being reverted from the rewritten version by the original author. Please note that the rewritten version was the one made by Meelar. Remy B 12:01, 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 14:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Eleanor Delaney[edit]

174 google hits for "Mary Eleanor Delaney". Could be an nn-bio anyway as it doesn't really assert notability, but since that the article has been around since February I decided to bring it here. Punkmorten 14:50, 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 Enoough NO CONSENSUS (default keep) - if anyone thinks a different result is possible then revert my closing -Doc (?) 00:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maryville Middle School[edit]

I attended this school, and it's not special. It teaches math, English, and science, phys ed and music just like every other public school. It has no special programs. The community does not "come together" around it (except the students, who are required to by law). There's nothing here for an encyclopedia article.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator. Superm401 | Talk 08:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --rob 08:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marskell 09:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The JPS 10:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is special and important too Yuckfoo 19:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, tell me how it's special. I can't wait. Gazpacho
      • How many public schools teach Latin?--Nicodemus75 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mine did. I don't think it's terribly rare. Someone is buying copies of Cattus Petasatus and two of the Amazon reader reviews say "I wish I had this book back in middle school where we had two years of Latin" and "Having studied Latin throughout high school." The National Junior Classical League has "49,701 members in 1064 chapters throughout the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom." If we guess that one chapter typically means one school, that's a thousand schools. Here's one college that lists about twenty Latin M.A. candidates, most of whom are teaching in public schools. This site says that there is "a nationwide shortage of high school Latin teachers, so the job outlook is excellent for Latin majors who wish to pursue their interest in Latin in this way. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief what a waste of time! I premptively closed this as the result was inevitable ('no consensus') and the so-called 'debate' a pointless waste of bytes. Obviously someone disagrees and believes another result is possible, or that the discussion will take us foward some how. Well, I now wait to being proved wrong! --Doc (?) 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A pre-emptive 'no consensus' is quite plainly a 'Speedy Keep' declaration by any other name. And clearly this is not eligible for Speedy Keep. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we all know it will be kept, so whether one wishes it deleted or not - what is the f***ing point of this ritual of pointless attrition?? Debates are for civil people to converse - to listen to each other with a view to reaching a consensus. This purile nonsense is not a debate. Gaahh! --Doc (?) 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point, as previously declared by several of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is to deleted 'even one bad article' or 'to keep inclusionists honest'. This in spite of an overwhleming 85%-90% precedent that school articles are not deleted on the basis or either being a stub or "non-notable". Frankly, this nomination is the picture of bad faith.--Nicodemus75 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What, and thumping up "votes" isn't? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • While I'm not a big fan of the divisive phrasing in those "alerts," since when has it been a problem to draw attention to a contentious ongoing debate? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Drawing attention" is when you ping someone who participated in a discussion, regardless of their opinions. That's not what this was. It's the unintentional irony of phrases like "conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists" that stands out most here. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as always. I refuse to believe a middle school can EVER be intrisincally encyclopedic. It will be if a widespread cannibal cult of Marduk is discovered on the premises, not a second before. --Agamemnon2 21:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a known and self-declared deletionist, nominating his own school and disparaging it, does not make the school non-notable. I am sure there are many students who attended this school who would disagree with the nominator.--Nicodemus75 22:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never declared myself a deletionist, nor did I disparage the school. Gazpacho 22:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, I confused you for someone else on the list at m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians. It's so hard to keep track of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles".--Nicodemus75 23:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no bloody cabal, deletionist or otherwise. Nobody is organizing keep or delete votes on school articles or any other, and the "Association of Deletionist Wikipedians" (just like the "Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians) is more or less a tongue-in-cheek reference to the good-faith disagreement between Wikipedians about what is appropriate encyclopedic material. I daresay you, Yuckfoo, and Kappa aren't conspiring "Inclusionists" any more than Denni, Dunc, and I are conspiring to annoy you personally by nominating schools for deletion. Please stop being intentionally divisive and realize that everyone here, whether they agree with you or not, is acting in good faith. That's the point of WP:AGF. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact, I'm even more mystified. Of the people on the meta AoDW page, one (Denni) regularly votes to delete school articles. Dunc occasionally votes to delete, and purplefeltangel feels that all high schools are encyclopedic topics. Really, don't take those pages too seriously. They're more or less tongue-in-cheek. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And despite Nicodemus' likely desire to ignore it, I do vote to keep school articles. Of three articles on AfD on one day last week, I voted to keep all three. This, I believe, demonstrates that I am willing to do something I would not have done in times past - accept that there is a place for articles on schools. I remain convinced, however, that school articles are subject to the same inclusion criteria as all other articles; that is, they are about notable subjects, and they have sufficient content to avoid speedy deletion per CSD:G1 or CSD:A1. Denni☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not principally your voting record I have problems with, it is with your philosophical approach to concepts such as "notability" "encyclopedic" and schools.--Nicodemus75 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, no attempt to prove otherwise. Moreover, inclusionists need reminding that a hundred 'no consensus'es do not add up to a Keep. Nor do a thousand or ten thousand. VfDs should continue until consensus is established. --Last Malthusian 22:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes they do. WP:DEL clearly states: "At the end of five days, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." Only one "no consensus" is required for a keep.--Nicodemus75 23:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • 100 "no consensus" results doesn't mean a consensus to keep; it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established. That's why no consensus defaults to keep; the article or articles are kept until consensus either way is established. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The statement that "it means that the articles are being kept until consensus is established" is just your interpretation. That is not what deletion policy states. It states that lack of consensus means that the article is retained, not that "it is retained until consensus is reached".--Nicodemus75 22:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It teaches grades 7 and 8. So what? Pilatus 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable with next to no useful public information. Cedars 23:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, knowing about this school might help me understand why its alumni don't wish to share knowledge with me. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best vote I've seen in a month.--Nicodemus75 23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are easy to please. Denni☯ 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, all schools are categorically notable. At a bare minimum, 43 school articles were created last Friday. 36 were created on Saturday. 37 have been created today so far. 2% of all articles created on Wikipedia are about schools. Please put an end to this senseless time wasting, there is no consensus to delete schools, nor should there be. Silensor 23:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor is there consensus to keep schools. If I'm mistaken about that, please point out the relevant policy page. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, there is an 85%-90% precedent to "not delete" school articles on the specious criteria of either being a stub or being "non-notable" (in the subjective opinion of "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles"). This circumstance is a product of the application of WP policy, in that some 40% of those articles were closed as "no consensus" and are thusly "not deleted". The fact that school articles are simply not deleted on the basis of either being a stub or being "non-notable" is clearly not accepted by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" is truly baffling. Despite my repeated questioning of why the precedent clearly established by the utilization of the AfD process and the implementation of WP policy is continutally disregarded, I have yet to read a single response that justifies the chronic war of attrition that is being waged against school articles, other than the repeated assertions that they are "non-notable" and that individual editors oppose the existence of the articles themselves. My question is (re-stated): "In the face of overwhleming precedent, why do "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" continue to nominate and vote to delete them? - What is achieved by these repeated nominations other than the continuation of a (clearly lost) battle? - How does nominating and voting to delete school articles that clearly will not be deleted in any way contribute to Wikipedia?"--Nicodemus75 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does haranguing people who make good-faith AFD nominations contribute to Wikipedia? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • How on earth can nominations and votes in the face of overwhelming precedent be characterized as "good faith"?--Nicodemus75 22:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • How is continually harrassing people who are participating in a legitimate AFD a "good faith" action? Just because the article has a low probability of deletion does not mean that an AFD is a "bad faith" action. Especially when the majority of school articles historically have had over 50% in favor of deletion.Gateman1997 23:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schools are not inherently notable, particularly those below the high school level. --Metropolitan90 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Condorman 00:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator G Clark 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another article by an author who is too damned lazy to find out more about a school than its name and address. This is not encyclopedic. Denni☯ 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-read WP:NPA. Calling an editor "too damned lazy" is without question, a personal attack.--Nicodemus75 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. This seems to be a boilerplate article, similar to stubs on towns and albums. While I don't think this is an appropriate encyclopedic stub, I don't think this was made in bad faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And indeed I do apologise to Gracefool for impugning his/her intent. Nonetheless, I feel it incumbent upon all who submit articles to provide as much information as they possibly can, and to accept that articles with little or no content are legitimately subject to CSD:G1 or an AfD vote. Denni☯ 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep

 ALKIVAR™ 04:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing would be lost by doing so. Vegaswikian 05:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#KeepJoaquin Murietta 05:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I'd ask all the delete folks to take a look at the Afd on Bush on the Couch here since this article is essentially a book review written by a guy who didn't read the book] Maybe you'd like to vote delete on that one? Joaquin Murietta 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And how might I do that, O facetious one? Gazpacho
  • Can't we all just get along? —Cryptic (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't seem to be big enough for that... Kappa 10:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past consensus has been to keep schools (see Wikiproject Schools archive and arguments to keep schools). ··gracefool |☺ 06:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are referring to individual discussions of individual schools. In some cases, there has been consensus to keep and in some there has been consensus to delete. There is no consensus on any policy as to which schools should be kept. Unlike WP:Music and biographies, there are no guidelines that have achieved consensus. And until the school inclusionists are willing to make a good-faith effort to establish sensible criteria for inclusion, there never will be. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have a good faith belief that all schools should be kept, just as all countries are kept, even the smallest, so there is no need for more detailed criteria. It is up to the deletionists to put an end to this by backing off with good grace. CalJW 17:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is absurd to compare deletion of a school article to deletion of a country article. You may have a good-faith belief that school articles should be kept, but that is just what it is, a belief. There is no hard and fast policy that school articles should be kept, and in fact there isn't even a clear consensus to do so. And your intransigent attitude toward compromise will get you nowhere here. I am probably the hardest-core deletionist here, but my ability to obfuscate and stonewall is dwarfed by people such as yourself, who have moved not a millimetre in the direction of a middle ground for school articles. While I have demonstrated my willingness to accept in principle that school articles have a place in Wikipedia, I have seen not the slightest suggestion of a complementary gesture from the inclusionists that perhaps school articles should have to meet certain criteria, as all other articles here do. Denni☯ 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worthy encyclopedic subject. Just like every other enduring public institution. Not vanity, nonsense or original research, therefore no reason to delete. Keep.--Centauri 07:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lets move on to some more useful work. Dlyons493 Talk 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Maryville, Tennessee where this school is already mentioned. The article is only a stub, and the merits for a separate article are dubious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it clearly states that it is a school in the title. --Celestianpower háblame 08:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -Poli 13:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge with Maryville, Tennessee (this has already been done); delete the separate article per the nominator. We are not WikiSchools, nor are we the Yellow Pages, so since there were no national news stories involving this school then there is no reason for keeping an article on it. --Idont Havaname 14:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -- DS1953 talk 14:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. And per all other arguments above and every other keep argument on every other school that has been kept. Seems that the time involved in arguing these points over and over, and the resources expanded in server space, bandwidth, etc is consuming more than would having the principal of every school in the English speaking world submit an article. Plus, these are public funded non-profit institutions. Its not like people are submitting these to gain profit for private schools that teach off the wall (POV) attitudes on religion or creationism/evolution or anything else. Rather bland articles, but still serve a purpose and are more helpful than not.—Gaff ταλκ 15:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no valid reason for deletion listed. This is a factual, neutral and verifiable article. Trollderella 16:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gaff. --Andylkl (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Selecting one article from a class of thousands, hundreds of which have survived nomination attempts, for deletion is not appropriate. CalJW 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what a waste of "not paper".  Grue  18:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my arguments here. Xoloz 18:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the article shows some reason this school is worthy of an article. Existance is not reason alone to keep an article.Gateman1997 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, it is. Kurt Weber 23:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um no, it's not according to general consensus on Wikipedia. Or do you have an better explaination as to why Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California or Village Preschool, Saratoga, California were both deleted?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consensus--if indeed what you say is consensus--is wrong; they shouldn't have been deleted. Kurt Weber 22:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you care to explain how consensus (which is the basis of Wikipedia) can be wrong?Gateman1997 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because it conflicts with what is objectively true. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, what people think is true or would like to be true does not affect what actually is true. And it is an objective fact, provable from first principles of the Universe, that such articles do indeed belong in Wikipedia. Kurt Weber 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • While that may be your opinion of school articles that does not make it true or untrue. It simply means it is your opinion. And fortunately your opinion is only one of many and the MANY make up what is true on Wikipedia... through consensus.Gateman1997 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good article of its type. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any currently operating public school meets my criteria for notability. StarryEyes 22:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. Besides, the mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why was Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California deleted?Gateman1997 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of us don't think it ought to have been.--Nicodemus75 23:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then if I were to recreate it or open a VFU would you support it?Gateman1997 23:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. But it wouldn't change the fact that if you were to do so, it would be a bad-faith action.--Nicodemus75 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • How would that be a "bad faith" action? The article has a legit reason to exist per your reasoning, shouldn't I as a reasonable member of Wikidom give it a chance to exist then. Gateman1997 23:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please stop resorting to straw man arguments and creating fictitious schools, by accident or not. Please consider that at the end of each day, between 2.0-3.5% of all new articles added to Wikipedia are written about schools. They are not written about your neighborhood grocery store. Your rhetoric is transparent and you do not need another Wikipedia editor to explain why. Silensor 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd like to see your evidence that 2-3% of all new articles are school related, also you did not answer my question. No one from the "keep" camp has actually. Explain how a neighborhood grocery store is any less deserving of an article then this school? It effects more people's lives then this school, and exists... so it seems to meet the criterion that are the basis for this school having an article. Why you think this is a straw man argument is beyond me. It is a legitimate question that keep users constantly dodge because they have no answer to it. Gateman1997 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think it is less deserving. I just think that YOU think that your Albertson's store doesn't merit an article, based on the history of your arguments about schools and other institutions. Thusly what you propose would be bad faith because it is contrary to your previously stated beliefs. If I see you consistently voting to keep school articles for 2 or 3 months, then I would believe a VfU on Albertson's would be in good faith.--Nicodemus75 23:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Obviously you've never read WP:FAITH. And if you've ever watched my voting trends they are fluid. I'm not a set in stone kind of guy as there is not set in stone policy as of yet. It is a reasonable proposition to play devils advocate now and then. Gateman1997 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Per WP:FAITH "Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.". You cried "Assume Good" faith when accused of the hoax you later admitted to, so please give it up. I concede your voting pattern is fluid, given you created a preschool, your ip nominated it for deletion, you voted to keep it, and then you voted for deletion. That's highly fluid. --rob 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I was wondering when my stalker would show up. I admitted to the WP:POINT hoax, but that was a seperate incident from Village Preschool. That article was made in good faith and nominated by my coworker. That has been established. And so what if I changed my vote. On that particular article the winds were pretty heavy toward delete. No reason for me to stand by my keep in that instance.Gateman1997 00:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's not an argument I have any interest in, sorry. If you would like to review the evidence that greater than 2% of all new articles are directly school related, please refer to Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New. Please note that these statistics only establish a bare minimum as an intentionally limited search criteria is being used. These repetitive discussions are without a doubt pointless, and I now understand why Tony Sidaway has removed himself from the bulk of these discussions; the schools will inevitably and ultimately prevail. Silensor 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Wow, I must admit that is an impressive amount of clutter... I mean articles.Gateman1997 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Yep. It really is getting time to face the music, isn't it?--Nicodemus75 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yep, just more articles to sift through to seperate the good articles from the AFD candidates. Oh well, no rest for weary.Gateman1997 00:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A school is not a grocery store. This argument stems from a misconception of what a school is. Schools have an existence quite apart from the simple bricks and mortar from which they are constructed. Schools are social institutions with distinct cultures and histories which often extend beyond the life any any individual person or building which forms part of that institution. Pburka 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While what you say is true of SOME schools it is not true of all schools. I've seen plenty of schools closed as quickly as a KMart and with as little consequence to their community as a store closing would have.Gateman1997 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a nice piece of dreamwork I see here. Schools no more have "distinct cultures" than Safways do. Except for the obvious differences between, say, a rich suburban school and a poor inner-city school, you can pretty much exchange one school's culture with the next and find zero real difference. If there were a big difference in histories, I would expect to see that reflected in the content of school articles. But despite reading over a hundred school articles (no word of lie, I read every school article Wikipedia currently possesses for California and Texas), I saw nothing to demonstrate that most schools have a distinctive history beyond differences in their opening dates. In fact, one of the biggest differences I saw between schools, based upon the information that these articles contained, was their school colors and mottos. While I'm sure the reality of the situation is different, it's a sad comment on the dismal quality of most school articles here. As far as I am concerned, if schools are important, it is incumbent upon the authors of these articles to convince us of that importance or be prepared to see their articles deleted for lack of content. Denni☯ 02:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This school does not have an distinct culture that extends beyond the individuals. It doesn't even have the same mascot it did when I was there. The culture of the band class is defined entirely by how Mr. Huffaker teaches it. When he retires, the band class will be completely different. Gazpacho
  • Keep When I click "random" article, I usually get an article about a "city" in Utah with a population of 143 or an anime character. If those are good enough, so is this. Honbicot 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize there are more schools in the world than cities and all anime characters combined?  Grue  06:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a verifiable public institution. --Centauri 06:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and stamp out vote stuffing [18] --redstucco 08:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Informing other concerned editors of an ongoing process is not "vote stuffing"--Nicodemus75 11:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what Monica Lewinsky did with Bill Clinton was not sex. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it is. We've gone over this before in school debates... it IS vote stuffing. Do it again and an RFC might have to be started.Gateman1997 16:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it isn't. And someone with your admitted track record of gaming the system by creating hoax articles and point articles should be last to talk about starting RfCs.--Nicodemus75 21:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You saying it isn't doesn't change the fact it is vote stuffing. I got in trouble for the same thing and so will you if you persist.Gateman1997 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. and stop wasting all our time, don't you have something to contribute rather than everyone having to go over, yet again, the very well-trodden ground of Should We Delete This School? I have lost count of how many schools have been nominated for deletion recently, and SFAIK none have been deleted - all have been kept. I personally find Beer Games non-noteable, BUT I realise there is enough interest that MY lack of interest is not universal. Ergo, they are noteable in spite of my opinion. Same with schools. You are not interested, you think they are nn, fine, don't read the darn articles! But surely you have realized that enough people consider them notable that the articles serve a purpose. Stop this senseless waste of time and do something productive, please. KillerChihuahua 11:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the vain and forlorn hope that one day, people will understand the difference between an encyclopaedia and a web directory. Quality not quantity, Wikipedia is not toilet paper, four walls and a roof are not inherently notable. And censure User:Nicodemus75 for vote pimping and incivility. Proto t c 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restricting access to the sum of human knowledge is indeed a vain and forlorn, and somewhat heartless, hope. Kappa 14:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Knowing that a quarter of the attendees at a middle school are eligible for free lunches is not a big contributor to the sum of human knowledge. If anything, it probably detracts from it, along with the thousands of other crufty nonarticles on Pokemon and some trash compactor in Star Wars that belong in Everything2 and not Wikipedia, obscuring the real goal of Wikipedia, which is to provide a comprehensive encyclopaedia under a deluge of crapulence. Proto t c 14:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you don't think the economic profile of students is a part of human knowledge then I don't think you have any understanding of the word. Kappa 14:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everything2 wouldn't put up with a one-paragraph article about how many students go to a school for five minutes. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that was what caught my interest most on this stub - that's a very high percentage to be on Free Lunch, and its a small school, yet they manage to teach Latin, and their website is better than my High School Alma Mater, so I'm thinking, there is more to this school, and I certainly hope someone adds to this article. KillerChihuahua
  • Delete because it is obviously a worthless and cheap piece of crap fit to be wiped on Chuck's poophole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchammer (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 October 2005
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Aquillion 21:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would we be defending it if it was indiscriminate information? Kappa 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, I ask myself that very same question. Yes, why would you? Denni☯ 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We wouldn't... Kappa 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And yet...you do. There is nothing here about the history of this school, any special programs it may have, any joint programs it may be involved in with its community, any notable staff or alumni. In short, what is here is indiscriminate information, and precious bloody little of that. Denni☯ 01:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I understand the likely outcome of this (or any other) school AfD, but it seems to me this should be no deterrent from voting my honest opinion on whether this particular article is sensible to include in our encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 01:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I am sorry that you're not very interested in reading about your own school. (Maybe that's because you went there and already know everything about it.) In any case, I am interested in reading about it. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and comments of Kappa. For those keeping score, I was solicited to participate by someone else, but please note that I would have participated anyway so the solicitation had no effect at all. Unfocused 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. When roughly half the people think the same something time and time again, the other half shouldn't just tell them to shut up. The people who are voting "delete" are doing so for a reason, even if in my case that reason is severe chemical imbalance and shrapnel in my frontal lobe. Please do not try to stifle debate, even debate as moribund as this one. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "come together" right now, and delete as per nom... there's nothing extraordinary in the article, except that one quarter of the school is poor getcrunk 20:21, 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 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master of the Lord Browser[edit]

An unknown "browser". Can't even google it. minghong 13:18, 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 (unanimous). --Scimitar parley 21:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Streeter[edit]

Non-notable bio; probably vanity or self-promo. The films cited on his website are just amateur. It's both a lonely and a deadend page. The JPS 10:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 18:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Andrew 03:20, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rouse-Deane[edit]

None notable author. Has written one self published book. Just read through the article, I wouldn't be surprised if this is an autobiography or written by someone very close. - Hahnchen 15:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn CLW 16:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: The book isn't notable by virtue of publication because it's self published. However it has been mentioned on BBC regional news, making it a bit more notable. The Land 19:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 04:32, 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 (thus keep). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musicianforums[edit]

Non-notable forums. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This forum claims 73,000 members. When nominating, please provide reasons why you think something is non-notable. Meelar (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it boasts 73,000 members, it doesn't make sense as a stand-alone page. The others don't make any valid claims to notability. -Nameneko 06:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable messageboard, nowhere on the level of say... the GameFAQs board. Reads like an advertisement. --Madchester 06:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first argument is not valid. WP:WEB says the following: A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria: (...) Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members. Now, this article claims 85,000 members for this forum. This would clearly meet the criteria and pass the notability bar. The catch is that I can't open the site to check for myself. Anyway, however, the article does at least make a strong claim to notability. Punkmorten 21:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have now been able to open the site, and it says Members: 85,258, Active Members: 10,393. Notable. Punkmorten 16:34, 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 no consensus (thus keep). – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mxtabs[edit]

Non-notable website. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 976,000 google hits, Alexa rank of 3,303. Notable and well-known tabs website. Punkmorten 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a well-known and well-visited site. --MCB 03:46, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mxtabs network[edit]

Non-notable website network. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nominator. It's vanity. Superm401 | Talk 08:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Andrew 03:22, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NITIE[edit]

It seems likely to be a copyvio, and even if it's not, it's very poorly written and unwikified. It also may be a vanity/advertisement article. Superm401 | Talk 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete copyvio from [19] --Anetode 08:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article was reverted to a revision lacking the copyrighted material, speedy delete vote withdrawn.--Anetode 09:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a future note, you can't speedy copyvios unless they're copied form a commercial content provider. Therefore, even if the version I saw was the only version, it still wouldn't be a speedy. Futhermore, the article's still clear advertising. Will you change the vote to regular Delete? Superm401 | Talk 09:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am withdrawing my vote and abstaining from this discussion altogether. After negligently posting a speedy delete tag on the article, I read through the copyvio policy and discovered just what you've mentioned. I'll try to be more cautious and prudent in the future. --Anetode 09:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without the possible copyvio material, there is practically nothing here. Saberwyn 12:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio but Keep if article is recreated at some later stage. NITIE is reputed; it's one of the most prestigious organisations in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though most of the article seems to be lifted out of the institutes webpage. NITIE is one of the most prestigious institutes in India. This article may have been created by one of its students without knowing about the copyright vio regulations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.197.39.166 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 23 October 2005
  • Keep. The anonymous posters are right. This is a very professional institute supported by the government of India, it's not some local college. Anetode removed the copyvio material. Put a clean-up tag on it, though. -- Corvus 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!!

I am an alumnus of NITIE and presently working as a Management Consultant with a leading Consulting firm in India.

NITIE is a premier institute in India and offers admission only to creme` de la creme` of the country for its post graduate programs.

The flagship courses at the institute include the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Management (PGDIM), the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Engineering (PGDIE) and the Post Graduate Diploma in Industrial Safety and Environment Management (PGDISEM).

The institute is focused on developing techno managers by grooming the elite engineers to take up management responsibilities. The institute takes in top performing students at the Common Admission Test (CAT) for the PGDIM program and the GATE for the PGDIE program.

The illustrious alumni of the institute bear the testimony to the quality of the students and the programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.149.212.242 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 24 October 2005

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NITIE"


This article is very poorly written in zilch quality english.It is lifted straight out of the institute's web page

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as copyvio by DragonflySixtyseven. Robert T | @ | C 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North-west coast[edit]

Generic title for an unnecessary article. All this stuff can be dealt with in Tasmania and other related pages. — ceejayoz ★ 02:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. We already have an article on the North-west coast of Tasmania so this article is surplus to requirements. It could be a disambiguation page if we had other North-west coasts. I have added this to

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 04:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our Tasmania article lists this as one of the regions. Capitalistroadster 04:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to North-west coast of Tasmania created by same author a couple minutes later. --Scott Davis Talk 05:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Scott Davis. "North West coast" could refer to hundreds of places around the globe. Tasmania's not the first to spring to mind though... --MacRusgail 16:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless there is perceived to be a need for a disambiguation page. As per user:MacRusgail there are many places that could be described as North-west coast around the globe, including the Kimberley coast of Australia. They are rarely described as such out of context though. I do not believe that a redirect to NW coast of Tasmania is appropriate nor a disambiguation page necessary.--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to more descriptive title, merge and redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been speedy deleted--User:AYArktos | Talk 01:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems the article was edited to be a redirect to an article which is a copyvio. As a result, the original article was speedied. The content may have been not the best, and the article title might have been incorrect, but it is a perfectly valid topic for an article. I'll re-create the article later as a non-copyvio, non-stub article. -- Chuq 03:12, 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. gren グレン 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Bob Saget![edit]

dicdef (if that) Flapdragon 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete V/M !
    00:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This wishes it could be a neologism when it grows up. Gets roughly 15-to-20 Googles (actual Google count is 46, but most of those are a line " 'OH!!!', Bob Saget squeeled." from some bestiality story that I'm sure as hell not clicking on). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism coined by an exploitative website (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy) --Anetode 07:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Not worth noting. - Kookykman (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Per above comments. Banes 16:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have voted for both the Tourette's Guy/Tourettes Guy sites to be deleted too. I also agree with Anetode that this is exploitative and probably insensitive to many sufferers who have to put up with this misunderstood syndrome. --MacRusgail 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should'nt belong in an encyclopedia.The Republican 19:59, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P-P-P-Powerbook[edit]

This article was tagged by Zoe, who couldn't create the afd page due to a computer bug. I'm creating it for her. No vote. Joyous (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I remember seeing this on MSNBC, as well as Slashdot.org and FARK.com. — ceejayoz ★ 05:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Thoroughly non-encyclopedic. encephalon 05:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful Forums under, perhaps, "notable events", its own section, or something similar. -Nameneko 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough to have its own page. Friggin' hilarious, too. - Sensor 05:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Something Awful Forums. It's an amusing anecdote that was well-publicized at the time, but Bob forbid articles should be split at the "good anecdote" level. — mendel ☎ 06:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral at this point. A more highly condensed version of this story might merit inclusion somewhere. What worries me is the gratuitous link to the article on "Something Awful", which I've found to be an utterly non-notable site that's vigorously spammed over Wikipedia. -- Hoary 08:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm afraid that this article was flagged because of my "editing". This was attempted in an effort to correct the ending of the article which did not coincide with information posted on http://www.p-p-p-powerbook.com. I am however confused as to which guideline for deletion the article violates. The article describes a well known internet event, which is at least as interesting as All_your_base or JEFF_K. Just because a community is solidly devoted to entertaining humor does not mean that it should be condemned to internet mediocrity. 68.185.207.169 04:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge as per other suggestions - a pretty major stunt from SA folks that got media attention too. --Wwwwolf 10:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a second thought, just Merge to appropriate SA article (SA itself or the Forums article), as suggested by others. --Wwwwolf 16:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep I personally think this is worthy of documenting, due to the significant amount of media attention it got, though I have concerns that giving it its own article might encourage forum users to create articles about more marginal events. Still, I'd prefer keeping it, even as its own article, to outright deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as scambait that made the news. It's better known than most conty councillors. Pilatus 13:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable incident in the non-notable history of a non-notable forum. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable 24ip | lolol 21:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Something Awful. Well known prank but I don't think this quite deserves its own article as it wasn't as popular as the "all your base" thingy, for instance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree with Rune Welsh above. I remember this - I lived in London at the time, it intrigued me. But by itself it's just a nice story. It's noteworth that the three big mirrors linked from the site are down, and that it's basically moribund. The chap must have felt better than Hitler did after France capitulated, though. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a notable 'Net phenom, as far as 'Net phenoms go. Deserves its own page, too. StarryEyes 23:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Something Awful --devotchka
  • Keep - notable -- Chuq 03:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • K-K-K-Keep. N-N-N-Notable c-c-c-counterscam. Unfocused 03:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of c-c-c-cource we should K-K-K-keep this! As above. Trollderella 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. McPhail 01:37, 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 05:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Komarek[edit]

Vanity page - EurekaLott 17:26, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pinowski Curve[edit]

original research. No google hits for Pinoski-curve. Zeimusu | Talk page 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete complete non-sense, no references, no google results, -- Malo 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly unverifiable. --Apyule 11:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. In addition, it's bad. --A D Monroe III 16:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; original research, unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 00:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's hilarious. I know a lot of people (including myself) who have always considered doing research on a relationship that ends up looking like the "Pinowski Curve." I don't see a problem with it being left here. -Bob Saget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.206.66 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 October 2005
  • Original research, along with N-Curve (AfD discussion) and J -Curve (AfD discussion) . Delete. Uncle G 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... or maybe BJAODN along with its partners. ;) — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Patent nonsense/probable hoax. Peter Grey 07:19, 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. Robert T | @ | C 20:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Robert T | @ | C 20:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professor David Ashmead, Notes for the Reader, and Hemisphere (poetry)[edit]

Non-notable professor and two non-notable volumes of poetry. Google for "David Ashmead" + Hemisphere found no results. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Google hits for "David Ashmead" at the University of East Anglia. For a member of the faculty one would expect to see old course pages, collaborations with colleagues or at least an obituary. Delete as hoax. Pilatus 20:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No hits for "David Ashmead", "Frank Davie", "Helena Gideon" or the journal Spectacle in the catalogue of the British Library. Pilatus 21:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable.--Scimitar parley 21:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Scimitar abakharev 08:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pilatus. feydey 08:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability about this man and his books. You would the British Library would have copies of the books if they existed due to the Legal Deposit that a copy of every book published in the UK must be provided to them. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Unverifiable. For all we know, someone could have just made this up. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:41, 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: 'Speedied as re-creation of material previously voted for deletion.

Project Tiger OS 2[edit]

The OS is definetely non-notable, and it looks like advertising. Very clearly. Delete.--SoothingR 20:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Thousands of UNIX clones out there. --Mm35173 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • De... Shit? AGAIN? They already already got redirected and nuked and by jove, nuked again! I was looking at them amused with their kind warm-hearted enthusiasm and ineptitude, but I'm slowly growing more cranky. Can someone please tell them really nicely that they shouldn't create Wikipedia articles until they, like, release something? Oh, and Delete this article. --Wwwwolf 10:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case then we might as well speedy delete it under CSD G4. -- SoothingR 13:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you turn your back for a second ... --Apyule 11:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied, blatant re-creation of material previously voted for deletion. Also marked as deleted page and protected, as was done for Project Tiger OS. Thanks for the legwork, Wwwwolf. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC). Note: See:[reply]
Tiger OS WIkipedia:Votes for deletion/Tiger OS
Petasoft Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petasoft
Project Tiger OS Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Tiger OS
  • Whomever deleted the page needs to close this AfD. MCB 01:00, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puro Soviet[edit]

Completing nomination begun by Zoe. Delete. Non-notable band.  BD2412 talk 01:32, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's fatigue[edit]

Nah dont do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.48.238 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Most of the prominent searches are Wikipedia and mirrors see [21]

While there is a link to a BBC online article see [22] the phrase is used in relation to reading all of the Booker Prize shortlist in a short time so it contradicts the article's contention that it relates to reading amateur writing. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Capitalistroadster's comment --Qirex 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a neologism, but the article is a) dicdef, and b) self-explanatory from title. --MacRusgail 17:16, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Michael G. Diesto[edit]

  • Delete vanity page --Leo
  • Delete vanity, and badly formatted --MacRusgail 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability. Unverifiable. "Michael G. Diesto" gets 4 unique Google hits. Other versions of the name get no correct hits. --A D Monroe III 18:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a nn resume. MCB 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable about this guy. The Republican 03:13, 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 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Galante[edit]

Bio that just barely avoids being a speedy


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Jackson[edit]

Non-notable. — ceejayoz ★ 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable -- Malo 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. "Rose Jackson"+"SDC" gets only 61 unique google hits, all very SDC centric and unverifible by outside sources. The only claim to notability is unsourced hints election irregularities. --A D Monroe III 15:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've never heard of this person. The Republican 18:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity, thy name is Rose Jackson. Stu 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page, like the last guy said. Devotchka 22:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page, I agree. Totally pointless. 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted as nn single person vanity

Ryan Glanzer[edit]

Non-notable vanity page created by the subject of the article. Alexa doesn't even have a rank listed, and Google has about two unique incoming links. — ceejayoz ★ 02:53, 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(?!?) 01:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saga of shimizu[edit]

Vanity article, only 100 readers. — ceejayoz talk 23:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If 110 is too few, then oh well. I thought it was a significant number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.149.117 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 October 2005
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceejayoz, the thing is that if we leave the page UP, we can get publicity for the saga, and thus have more readers. Catch 22 sort of thing. What's wrong with leaving it up, anyways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.168.1.101 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 October 2005
    • Wikipedia is not a promotional venue. — ceejayoz talk 23:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Saga of Shimizu is also up for deletion, the only difference between the two articles being the second capital 'S' in the title. Saberwyn 04:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 07:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 04:13, 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 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saro Mardikian[edit]

No relevant hits in google. Probably nn. Tintin 02:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Shameless vanity. Being an extra in Voyager does not make you notable. TheMadBaron 03:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite additional claims to notability, including "awesome", "uncanny", "immortal" (not culturally, but physically!), and "super duperly cool". Unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 15:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TheMadBaron --Rogerd 03:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Johntex\talk 00:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful. BeteNoir 09:54, 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 redirect to Second language acquisition. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Second Language Acquisition[edit]

Text dump of a research paper. (Possible copyvio.) Delete. - 84.42.148.115 14:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added my own text to start this page. I thought it would be a helpful start to building up a knowledge page about second language acquisition and I have referenced everything properly. I'm new to Wikipedia, and just wanted to make a helpful contribution, if there are revisions I need to make, please let me know without simply deleting the whole lot! C Fielder

  • C Fielder please check out Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article on what a really good, useful article contains and also WP:SR for short rules about formatting/editing. Your contributions are certainly welcomed here and it seems you have done some great research and are interested in a very interesting topic, now you just need to get them to conform to the established Wikipedia rules. Welcome! Powers of i 20:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I have to change some stuff on my user page before I can put the article on wikipedia? Any practical suggestions with whats wrong with it? CF

  • It would probably be best to discuss the matter elsewhere, but the most obvious point is that Second language acquisition already exists. Before you start writing a new article, it's a good idea to check whether there is already an article on the same subject. TheMadBaron 19:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. (If anyone cares, there's a copy of this at User:Mga/Second Language Acquisition. Complete with a redlinked afd stuck to it. Hates that, hates that I does.) —Cryptic (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, author can add any new information to Second language acquisition that he/she feels is missing. No need to redirect, it's the same name just with different capitalization -Andrew 03:30, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shophouses Of Chinatown Singapore[edit]

This article currently has no content but a few non-encyclopedic comments. Thue | talk 09:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --MacRusgail 17:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 18:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 22:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sliggy 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a copyvio from [23], as with other original articles from this user. ErikNY 01:01, 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. Looks like the article has been fixed. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skogskyrkogården - The Woodland Cemetery[edit]

The first draft [24] appears to be a copyvio from here, and am not sure how to untangle the non-copy-vio parts. In addition, there is already the article Skogskyrkogården. Fred-Chess 01:10, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"solvent drag"[edit]

Fails the Music notability test. I found 0 hits on google. I have a feeling this is a local garage band. --Woohookitty 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Woohookitty 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because they only had one album, and it was recorded in 1992. They're not a garage band, but they don't seem notable. If they were, they should have released a second album. TECannon 08:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Butch Vig's is a notable producer, and this article would be of interest to a completist collector. I found 14 Google hits for "Solvent Drag" "Butch Vig". Only having one album is not a reason for deletion, unless you also want to delete various articles about one-hit wonders. TheMadBaron 10:57, 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 to Speedy Delete the article. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sopme[edit]

Neologism--Shanel 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 
ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because this post on facepunchstudios.com told you to come here and vote, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is deleted. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made purely upon weight of numbers.

  • I disagree on the grounds that Shanel used a word I dont understand - leelad - unsigned comment by anon user:83.100.154.11
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kappa 00:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Kappa. --Allen3 talk 01:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this must be deleted! SOPME FOREVAH! -DarkFlame - unsigned comment by anon user:24.67.253.203
  • Sopme I disagree on the...hehe...YAY! -Sopme - unsigned commeny by anon user:72.29.38.96
  • DONT DELETE SOPME IS OUR SAVIOUR! THERE ARE SOPMEISTS EVERYWHERE! - unsigned comment by user:TheBlackViper whose edits thus far are only to this article and to this deletion discussion. The same user also edited the comment of user:24.67.253.203 above. I have reversed that edit.
  • Delete neologism, admitted joke. Note to closing admin: don't forget to delete the pictures too! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:72.29.38.96 page-blanked this discussion. reverted by user:Kappa
  • Comment: Folks, we are going to delete this thing whatever you say, no offense. If you want to share it with people try, Wiktionary has a place for it at Wiktionary:List of protologisms Kappa 02:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, ok. It's moved to Wiktionary. Sorry for all the retardness. But now we get to start all over there. Yay. (sopme) - unsigned comment by anon user:72.29.38.96
  • Delete. "Note that this is a joke and to not be taken seriously." Wikipedia is not a joke book. And it's not even funny. Yay. TheMadBaron 02:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yay for Kappa and his/her Wiktionary. Thanks. -Sopme! - unsigned comment by anon user:24.67.253.203
  • I disagree that this should be be deleted. - unsigned comment by anon user:70.24.38.250
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalised by anon user:72.29.38.96 who attempted to replace the discussion with nonsense. Reverted by user:Meelar.
  • You can't kill the sopme... - unsigned comment added by anon user:144.131.162.182
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was vandalized by anon user:24.254.222.142 who attempted to remove all the "delete" comments. In the next edit, anon user:24.185.197.213 page-blanked the discussion. The page-blanking was reverted by user:Joy Stovall. The rest of the vandalism was reverted by user:Aranda56.
  • SOPME IS OUR SAVIOUR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - unsigned comment by anon user:84.58.16.205
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense and Protect from recreation --JAranda | watz sup 03:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, anon user:70.24.38.250 vandalized the page by deleting several comments. Those comments were later found and restored by user:Nameneko
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. — ceejayoz ★ 03:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the images also. - Stoph 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've listed the images for deletion already. -Nameneko 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the one on Wiktionary while you're at it. -Nameneko 03:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete the wiktionary one, they told us to put it there. - unsigned comment by anon user:72.29.38.96
    • Au contraire, they didn't tell you to put it on Wiktionary; they suggested it. Besides, it doesn't qualify for its own article on Wiktionary anyways, as it's a protologism. -Nameneko 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nice art but a neologism based on a typo on a website is not notable. Wiktionary is a different site and this vote will have no influence on them. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT DELETE New words are added to every language every day let this be another one! - unsigned comment by anon user:65.67.60.119. In this user's next edit, he/she removed several "delete" comments. Vandalism reverted by user:Kirill Lokshin. The anon user again attempted to remove comments and was again immediately reverted by user:Kirill Lokshin
  • Delete nonsense. --rob 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, not encyclopaedic. --Qirex 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bottom line. "Note that this is a joke and to not be taken seriously.". Saberwyn 07:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete garish nonsense --Anetode 07:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete deliberate nonsense Bwithh 07:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONT DELETE sopme is too awesome to delete, you cant.(not influenced by mentioned post)- IpHa - unsigned comment by anon user:69.208.71.162
  • Delete, Pathetic attempt at a fad. - unsigned comment by anon user:82.18.103.53 who initially "signed" the post as user:Cheeez but later removed that signature.
  • Comment: At this point in the discussion, the page was again blanked, this time by anon user:24.6.139.85. Reverted by user:Joy Stovall
  • Neologism, spam, vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 16:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete please! --MacRusgail 16:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete In The History of Wikipedia: This vote should be closed already, but I didn't want to do it just because I wanted to show my support against the Sockpuppets. I'm also heading over to the Wiktionary version and making sure it's burned with fire and putting it on my watch list over there so it never comes back again. Karmafist 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JESUS H CHRIST... Delete. Non-notable, a la Chebs. The Land 19:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page is absoult nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Republican (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BTW, a very good infobox, and I hope to see it more often in similar circumstances. --Agamemnon2 21:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep delete. I listed it as such.—Gaff ταλκ 22:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Speedy delete vanity RadioActive 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP in agreement with all of the speedy criteria mentioned above. --Fire Star 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when the word becomes widely used then it can have an article. Cedars 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kappa voted to delete!?!! Hey, I'm going ice skating down below! MCB 00:49, 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/speedy. --Celestianpower háblame 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sourse of funding NGO/Sector[edit]

  • The article contents nothing but soliciting of funding to some charity. Delete abakharev 06:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Spam. Marskell 10:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. TheMadBaron 11:44, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign equality of sates in contemporary international relations[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV essay. --Metropolitan90 06:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV and spelled wrong! Keresaspa 14:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone's essay, cut and pasted. Probably counts as "original research" violation anyway.--MacRusgail 17:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic[edit]

Non-notable website. Part of a group of four non-notable webpages. -Nameneko 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Returns a lot of Google hits and I had heard of it before this discussion. Impaciente 08:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Look at the forum, it has more than 85,000 registered users. This website definetely is notable. -- SoothingR 09:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article makes no claim to notability, I believe it could. Someone needs to add such data with cited sources to the article, however. --A D Monroe III 18:50, 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squirminator2k[edit]

Delete this non-notable vanity page on non-notable web comic creator. "Squirminator2k (or S2K as he is known informally) is probably one of the most respected, important members of the Team 17 Forum Community. He is also a self-proclaimed Team 17 and Nintendo Fanboy, and he likes chocolate. ... S2K also works on a webcomic called Fried, which is updated occasionally [and also up for deletion]." Dragonfiend 19:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was no AfD tag, so I've added one. Delete, NN, vanity. TheMadBaron 09:04, 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. Robert T | @ | C 20:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Aurobindo Association[edit]

Insignificant group. 348 google hits. Alexa rank for their website is 3,205,990. How can this be considered notable? Delete. Joel7687 15:34, 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 dealt by Various Mills, which is keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis Mills[edit]

This is just a mall/shopping center, and I don't see how it's particuarly notable, so I think it should be deleted. --172.162.11.172 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hang on a second. There is a whole category on properties owned by The Mills Corporation; see {{Mills corp}}. How can we delete this article while keeping the rest of the articles, nay, the whole subject? - Sensor 05:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is completely worthwhile. Like most articles on Wikipedia it needs to be enhanced. There has been no discussion on its Talk page, just one wild Deletionist again taking it upon themselves to remove what others are working to create. ContentLuver 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. General concensus is that this stuff is okay to be here (I don't agree but that's not the point). If people want to get rid of this stuff, there needs to be a fair bit of discussion with the aim of determining what to do with it all, not just scraps here and there without centralised discussion. --Qirex 07:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a completely interchangable, forgettable mall (I've been there many times), and right now this is a address directory entry. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this particular mall, and this article right now runs afoul of WP:NOT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. As long as its name appears on the template, it will likely just keep getting created again. I agree with Qirex, if we are going to get rid of it, we need to get rid of them all and merge with the parent article. --Holderca1 15:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's the store directory of a shopping mall, guys! Pilatus 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is mere advertising copy. It's a directory and directions. There is no encyclopedic content here. If you're worried about recreation, then remove it from the template. (The fact that we've not yet deleted other equally non-notable articles is not justification to perpetuate the mistake.) Rossami (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing encyclopedic --JAranda | watz sup 18:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have proposed a deletion for all the articles about individual Mills properties. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills" --Blackcats 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, it a shame that we let ingnorant people make deletion decisions. --Boothy443 | comhrá 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've removed the instructions on leaving the mall. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Also rephrased some POV and wordy language. Someone else should make the rest more time-resistent.- Mgm|(talk) 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - otherwise it's just gonna be like a trash for years here. There are other pages much more notable and needing attention. Renata3 00:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "it's just gonna be like a trash for years here." --Holderca1 01:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Cleanup from October 2004. There are a lot of trash around here and not enough mops. PMSing Renata3 03:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I certainly commiserate with your PMS and your disgust with the current state of that category, I don't think that's really a valid reason to delete this article. It's a reason to try to make some changes to the cleanup system, instead. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep shite malls. --SPUI (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mills is on the leading edge of retail and the projects associated with them have a huge impact on communities, economics, and trends in retail. The article needs to be developed further. An article should not be deleted because it appears weak and someone therefore thinks it is not notable. Most articles start off small and need time to grow. This article has been growing due to the contributions of many users. It needs more time to develop. Information should be added about when it first opened, the retail concepts used, and what makes it unique. For those that want to delete this, please instead focus your energy on making articles in Wikipedia better, rather than trying to rip away the work of others. 24.240.204.226 19:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep revised version. Good edits, thanks. Unfocused 03:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mgm's edits were quite helpful. See also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various "Mills". --Jacquelyn Marie 03:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing encyclopedic about this article - this leading edge of retail comment has more information than the actual article - Tedernst 21:29, 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS (probably rename, expand and cleanup - please discuss on article's talk page). -Doc (?) 15:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (The purpose of Afd is to ascertain consensus through debate - but dozens of schools nominations show that there is no consensus on this issue, and there will be no real 'debate'. There will be an acromonious shouting match with no-one open to persuasion - leading to an inevitable 'no-consensus' result. I am thus closing this debate, and noting its predictable outcome. If anyone thinks that reopening this 'debate' will acheive anything, or has any chance of producing a different result, feel free to revert my action! (I will feel vindicated when you are proved wrong.))

St.-Pius-Gymnasium[edit]

not-notable -- skINMATE 13:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical process control[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't understand why this was listed for deletion? --Qirex 08:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same reason as Qirex. --GraemeL (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obvious notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic. --A D Monroe III 18:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons mentioned. chowells 22:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep obviously encyclopedic topic. Klonimus 05:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe this AfD is a joke? keep, keep, keep. --Condorman 05:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As for the why, the guy who slapped the AfD template on the article wrote on the talk page
"Wordy, unsourced, no good examples. I'm still not sure how the article even relates to the title. What do statistics have to do with it? What sort of process is being controlled? Is there a thing called "process control"? Who says you can control a process? Or that you can't? This article stinks. I'd delete it if it was up to me."
I agree with the general sentiment of these remarks, but the article (in particular, the first paragraph) does have some information. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, many Google hits, with the first one pointing to a "A bibliography on Statistical Process Control compiled by the NASA Headquarters Library." I removed all but the first paragraph, which in my opinion is the only one that contains information, and added a stub notice. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Although the subject is misnamed, it is the standard business term. -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm in a class about this in college right now, I'm pretty sure it's valid. Bloodshedder 03:18, 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 delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stil fm[edit]

Judging from the article this radio station is not notable. Thue | talk 16:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The station is not obviously notable, and the article is obviously nonsense. TheMadBaron 05:45, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuperFLORENCEjam[edit]

Band, no allMusic entry and 22 google hits. Punkmorten 12:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Their website sayd they're not signed. So Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC The Land 19:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any band that can't get a record contract. TheMadBaron 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete they are getting good radio play in Australia! That is important. 24 October 2005
    • Could the anon contributor at 211.26.146.175 who made the last comment provide documentation such as a link to weekly airplay lists from whomever tracks these things in Australia? We need Verifiability that a band meets one of the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Barno 17:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I am really sorry, but I can't give airplay lists. But I can quote this from the official site: "05.10.05

Francesco, Mike and Tulett from super FLORENCE jam were interviewed on 88.9FM on 'The Program'. Chaos ensued." They have also featured in music publications: ie. Drum media (this magazine does not feature on the list provided, but is well known in Aus) Oct 2005.(Days will chase 11:45, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T and T Protection Service[edit]

I did a search for it on google, and nothing related came up. Then I said on the article's author's talk page that they needed to provide proof for the series, and that if they didn't I would put the article on Articles for Deletion. And here we are. FDIS 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - FDIS 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 06:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:45, 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 merge to List of New Order Jedi characters. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tekli[edit]

Nonsense. TheMadBaron 08:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not nonsense but nn, unverified fancruft. Marskell 09:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. I swear we've been through this before, a few weeks ago. Tekli is a canon character from the Star Wars New Jedi Order series. However, there is, at this point in time, not enough published material to justfy an article, either on her, or any of the minor NJO characters, at this point in time. Delete. Saberwyn 12:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through it before, and numerous similar articles have already been deleted, but this particular one appears to have been overlooked. Since it doesn't attempt to define "Chadra-Fan", "Mon Calomari", "Myrkr", or even "Jedi", doesn't even mention "Star Wars", and makes no attempt to differentiate between fact and fiction, it is, as it stands, utter nonsense. TheMadBaron 14:36, 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 redirect to Alphonse Mouzon. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious Records[edit]

Delete. Not notable, basically an advertisement for a sole proprietorship.--Mm35173 17:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, vanity, promo The JPS 11:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Alphonse Mouzon. Factual and verifiable, but Tenacious Records is notable only through him. --A D Monroe III 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per A D Monroe Renata3 03:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Condorman 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this is a two sentence stub, and the information in it is already in Alphonse Mouzon. Simply redirect. encephalon 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 01:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teslathon[edit]

Delete, Advert. --Oscarthecat 08:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tesla maybe or Move to Wiktionary. Does get google hits, but not sure if more can be added. --JJay 17:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Tesla. Only 133 unique Google hits, so not notable by itself, but I think it's existence would add something to the Tesla article. --A D Monroe III 18:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above Renata3 03:44, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell Tree[edit]

Non-notable gaming forum. —Wayward Talk 22:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Gaff ταλκ 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.216.52 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 08:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete it. It is in construction. ac1983fan (actually — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.220.251 (talk • contribs)
  • Please don't delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.233.55 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The thing is, dear forum members (which I'm not), the forum isn't notable enough. The Policy says you've got to have 5000 members. Secondly, this article isn't much about the forums, it's more about the members themselves. The article doesn't even link to the forum in question! Since you have a nice website (which I haven't seen), surely you have space for member lists there! Or somesuch. --Wwwwolf 22:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page for its forum members. —Wayward Talk 22:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wwwwolf --Rogerd 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yo foos delete this shizzle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.232.201 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete non-notable. reasonably unreadable, almost to the point of speedy. --Syrthiss 14:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --Jishnu--Jishnua 14:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF are you guys doing! It's notable! It's not proffesional! You guys are to frikkin strict!*goes to make own encyclopedia*


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 from http://web.revolutionrock.com.au/oral-hist/index.php?id=36 ) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Assassins[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability. 13 unique Google hits. Unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 18:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. This band was an important part of the cultural and political history of Brisbane, Australia and the development of Australian punk music in the early 1980s. It's totally verifiable as evidenced by the links to other sources within the article. The band who are the subject of the article also have significant claim to notability among people who live in Brisbane and Australia, which is presumably a topics the person calling for this page to be deleted knows little about. This article should NOT be deleted. --User:andyn


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 21:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Generation Sound Machine Experience[edit]

Apparently NN band, who I have listed for deletion. This is a non-released album! MacRusgail 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment from me. The band Generation Sound Machine is also up for AfD and this is an album, which by the article's own confession may never be released. This would be okay if we were talking about "Smile" by the Beach Boys, but the band doesn't appear to be at all notable. --MacRusgail 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. How can you get less notable than unreleased albums by a former band with no other releases? --A D Monroe III 18:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Renata3 03:47, 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 Speedy Deleted by RHaworth as attack page. --GraemeL (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Learey[edit]

I don't know if this is for real or not. I searched Yahoo! and Google, and Wikipedia is the only (two) hits. I think this might be a joke. WikiDon 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. Powers of i 20:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google shows nothing. Denni☯ 02:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpeedy Delete I have an unproven theory that the construction service provider A Allan Learey is a user of excavator(s) based in Queensland, Australia and one unofficially called "The Learey" is used in Geelong, Victoria, Australia. But I think, it's fair to say nothing real has been, or could be found on this, and if anything about it is real, it's trivial. So, we should just get rid of the nonsense. --rob 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A1, "very short articles providing little or no context". --MCB 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as nonsense. Alr 03:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nonsense. --A bit iffy 08:26, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Streets In The Depths[edit]

"Small local band" apparently MacRusgail 17:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment from me. The band Generation Sound Machine is also up for AfD and this is an album, which by the article's own confession may never be released. This would be okay if we were talking about "Smile" by the Beach Boys, but the band doesn't appear to be at all notable. --MacRusgail 16:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. How can you get less notable than unreleased albums by a former band with no other releases? --A D Monroe III 18:30, 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. All "Don't Delete" votes are by users whose only contributions are to the article itself and this AfD debate. — JIP | Talk 10:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TheoPhasic Science[edit]

I believe this to be a hoax page. If not a hoax, it is a "brand-new" philosophy, a sort of neologism. Joyous (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable, zero google hits even for 'theophasic'. --Stjarna 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 04:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I don't believe that this page is doing any harm, even if it gets "zero google hits." If everyone faced new things like you all are, the human race would never gain knowledge.

Delete no one using and wikipedia shoulden't be used for someones religion

  • Don't Delete I Agree, if we delete this, we may be deleting and eistienian idea, in which human thoughts may revolve around later in the future
  • Don't Delete There is nothing wrong with neologisms - movements begin with such ideas. A lack of an open mind is what stunts progress.
  • Delete this isn't the place for new research or unverified information - if einstein published a new idea here, it would also be deleted Tedernst 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The Wikipedia deletion rules state that if a wiki has "original research," then that wiki may be put up for deletion. However, this rule was made for papers that are extremely outlandish (eg. Why cat's hate dogs in 1898 by looking at animal weight). If examining the content on this page, it is basically confirmed by human logic, the point of this wiki. The only difference between this wiki and regular thought is that this wiki calls those thoughts "TheoPhasic Science." So are those people who are pro-delete saying that our thoughts are not evidence? *And the materials that are known to humans count as thoughts because that is what they started as.
    • I suggest that this wiki and some of the concepts in this article should be renamed/moved, NOT DELETED. Some of the wiki's concepts are not foreign. If one does a search for some of the ideas without the names, one turns up hits. The only difference is that this wiki is particular and puts all of the thoughts under a new catagory, dubbed "TheoPhasic Science" because it follows a type of logic, such as science, but concerns a lot of theology based questions. The name of phasic is in there to show a bridge between the two. If Einstein had the capabilities to post on Wikipedia, he probably would have, and especially more modern scientists whose ideas are so strange, or named, that they are rejected, yet fastforward several years and they are widely accepted. The only reason why Einstein wasn't automatically rejected was because he had substantial research to back it up. This wiki just needs some links that agree with the information posted. *A large percentage of people didn't believe the universe was expanding till the background radiation was discovered, but that didn't mean that it wasn't true before the discovery.
  • Don't Delete If Einstein published a new idea here, it would also be deleted? Doesn't that prove the utter ridiculousness of this even being considered for deletion? Without Einstein's thoughts and proofs, technologically, as a race, humans would be at least a few centuries behind.
    • Einstein would publish in a scientific journal and then that journal would be cited when someone wrote an article here. What part of "No original research" don't you understand? Tedernst 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism of this page and those who have commented here confirms probable hoax/vandalism. --Dvyost 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do realize that a) the vandalism of the actual wiki has gone down, and b) the vandalism of the page has nothing to contribute to the "hoax" assumption of the wiki.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thief Incarnate[edit]

This is a non-notable web forum. "Thief Incarnate" gets 49 hits on Google, many of which do not refer to the forum itself. NatusRoma 01:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things Reunited[edit]

NN Flapdragon 12:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 18:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can we add websites and podcasts to the biographical speedy criteria? The Land 19:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold Music[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if not substantially expanded in next two days. --MacRusgail 17:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. No claim to notability. Only 247 unique Google hits. --A D Monroe III 18:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toa garil[edit]

Nonsense. TheMadBaron 06:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not entirely nonsense, just a non-notable character from Lego's Bionicle product series. Same applies to the contributor's other entry, Toa Lhikan's group of Toa. --Anetode 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anetode, but out of context, might as well be rubbish. --MacRusgail 17:46, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Lhikan's group of Toa[edit]

Nonsense. TheMadBaron 08:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable entry concerning the bionicle product series --Anetode 10:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR very weak redirect to Lhikan or Toa. Nothing to merge, as all information is contained either at Lhikan, Nidhiki or Toa. Saberwyn 12:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --MacRusgail 17:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tourettes guy[edit]

Two comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy proposed that this article should also be deleted, hence AfD tag added. CLW 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - see my comments on the other page. I feel that this "show" is pretty exploitative too, and insensitive towards many Tourette's sufferers. --MacRusgail 16:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AngryBlackMan/talk
    16:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — ceejayoz ★ 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rank in the mid-70,000s, fewer than 10,000 Google hits. I don't find "offensive to Tourettes sufferers" a good reason to delete, but the rest stands on its own. Lord Bob 17:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lord Bob. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This humor video series is well-known among the appropriate audiences. It's a favorite at Ebaums World, and the number of google hits does not accurately reflect its popularity. --Frag 21:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & User:Lord Bob.—Gaff ταλκ 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourette's Guy, thanks for tagging it --Anetode 07:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and above comments. Indium 09:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trimorphic Resonance[edit]

Crank. Pseudo science. Original research. -- RHaworth 17:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crankery with one follower, according to Google. Pilatus 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, although being pseudoscience alone is not criteria for deletion. It is its non-notability which makes it worthy of deletion. --MacRusgail 18:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 23:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, and nonsense. TheMadBaron 05:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man has spent a NUMBER of years, written and published numerous books on this subject, and is genuinely interested in finding a way to unify science and religion. I am not sure how these things work, but i am for keeping the entry, and allowing it to be expanded, or maybe explained in more layman friendly terms. User:ScottYates 22:02, 25 October 2005 (CST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor Hassett[edit]

Short stub about an unnotable actor who only has this one minor credit on IMDB. No real articles link here. I found it through 'short pages' and tidied it to a reasonable form. The JPS 09:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One episode doesn't seem to be enough. --rob 10:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article seems to be made by somebody who has put nonsense in other articles. Tud123 (name coincidence?) also created/signed an article with the text "T. Hassett Creator of Wikipedia"[25]. Also, note the original version of this article claimed "Tudor Hassett starred in Jonathan Creek." (a slight exaggeration, since he did just one episode) --rob 10:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to be very inclusionist with actors, in general, but geez... one guest appearance on a not-particularly-well-known series is way under any reasonable bar of notability. According to this, Tudor is 11 years old. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ive created a new article about this kid...

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. gren グレン 12:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Crips[edit]

Nonsense.

  • It has been suggested that this article be merged with Crips, but it would need a total rewrite first.... it has been marked for cleanup since May, but it seems unlikely that it can ever be cleaned up much, since its basic 'facts' are either unintelligible or, at best, disputed (see talk page). The best solution, I think, is to delete it, since it's basically trash anyway.... TheMadBaron 02:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per TheMadBaron's comments and generally utter nonsense in the entry and the Talk. Powers of i 03:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unintelligible, apparently not even factual (although I have no first-hand or reliable knowledge either way) --Qirex 06:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm liking TheMadBaron's plan. Delete. Saberwyn 07:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, me too. --Apyule 10:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 00:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed with MCB. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, fiction getcrunk 00:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How many votes do we need to actually delete this? Canthony 15:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same question as above...JustinStroud 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a question of a particular amount of votes being required to delete an article - articles are deleted, or not, at the discretion of the admins. No-one has suggested that this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. Since we have a clear consensus to delete it, it's a safe bet that some admin or other will see fit to do so.... but not before it's been on AfD long enough to get a fair hearing. TheMadBaron 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is waiting about 5 days before closing any AfD... this had massive consensus and has for a while so it probably could have been closed earlier but it's typically safe to wait at least five days before you start closing too much. But, I'm a new admin so what do I know. (read Wikipedia:Consensus) gren グレン 12:39, 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various Mills[edit]

This is a group deletion I'm proposing for all the individual Mills owned malls and shopping centers. An article about the chain as a whole is probably appropriate, but none of these individual malls are notable, so their individual inclusion and detailing strikes me as advertising. An individual mall does not merit inclusion unless it's particularly famous, like the Mall of America. Articles to be deleted here include: Arizona Mills - Arundel Mills - Cincinnati Mills - Concord Mills - Del Amo Fashion Center - Dover Mall - Franklin Mills - Pittsburgh Mills - Galleria at White Plains - Great Mall of the Bay Area - Gurnee Mills - Katy Mills - Lakeforest Mall - Marley Station - Ontario Mills - Opry Mills - Potomac Mills Southdale Center - St. Louis Mills - The Block at Orange - Vaughan Mills.

--Blackcats 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep if the user above would have done some research, which by this nomination it only shows that either they didn;t or they decided to ingnore anything that they have seen, they would have found out they the majortiy of facilites are major enocomic factors in the areas that they are located, some even more so then the over-hyped mall of america. The also serve as major congerating ponints as well, with several placning in the top 5 if not the top tourist destination in the state in which they are located. Also many new builds have served as anchors for substantinal development , where the rebulds have served in major as the core of major redevelopment projects. If these articles are deleted then i will afd ever skyscraper, ever other mall and related srtucture for the reason that these are pening deleted. But this is just another reson why the VFD is the same broken process with a different name. The ingnorance of people doing the sligest amount of research is amazing. --Boothy443 | comhrá 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A lot of small American towns have individual Wal-Mart stores that "are major enocomic factors in the areas that they are located," "serve as major congerating ponints," and "have served as anchors for substantinal development." So by your logic, each of these individual Walmart stores would merit their own article. But these facts can all be noted in the main Mills Corp and Wal-Mart articles, so there's no need to have individual articles about individual malls. Just like McDonalds, or any other chain, the chain itself may be notable, but individual franchises (or company-owned stores) usually aren't. Also, if you follow -up on your threat to propose the deletion of those other articles then you'll be violating WP:Point. Blackcats 20:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:Have you even looked at the articles that you nominated? Vaughan Mills is one of the largest shopping centers in Canada. Sounds notable enough to me for a keep. I don't think any Walmart can claim that. --Holderca1 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I've looked at all the articles and have seen a lot of repetition and nothing that struck me as noteworthy about any of them. As for the Vaughan Mills, I would be willing to excluded it from this AFD in the interest of focusing just on the malls with no obvious notability. But I am very dubious about Vaughan Mills' claim to notability as "one of the largest shopping centers in Canada." One out of how many??? And where's the substantiation of this? Also, its Google test doesn't show much notability - it gets under 62,000 google hits [26], compared with 196,000 for Wal-Mart and Green Bay [27](should the Green Bay, WI Wal-Marts get their own article too?) and over one million for "Mall of America." [28] Blackcats 20:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. That's a bit of flawed reasoning. For any given metropolis, there's only going to be one Mills location tops. But for the same area, there could be a dozen Wal-Marts. For example, Vaughan Mills serves the Greater Toronto Area; the same area contains 21 local Walmart stores. [29]
            • It may not be a perfect analogy, but there's no flaw in the reasoning. You can also look at towns which only have one Wal-Mart store, like Markham, ON [30], whose Wal-Marts still get more Google hits [31] than the supposedly noteworthy Vaughan Mills. Blackcats 21:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. If you're going to be specific, the Wal-Mart is located at Markville Shopping Centre, I go there semi-regularly. So when you do a combined Google search for "Markville Shopping Centre" and "Wal-Mart", it only yields 1,360 hits [32]. I looked at the combined hits for "Markham" and "Wal-Mart" and lot of them contain references to other Wal-Marts in the GTA or Ontario in general, not the specific store at Markvile Shopping Centre, Markham. Some of the results in the same search yielded links to Robert Markham or to stores in Arkansas, lol. --Madchester 21:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added "Ontario" to the search, and still got almost as many hits as the supposedly famous Vaughn Mills [33], even though this was certainly excluding a good number of websites which mentioned this wal-mart without bothering to spell out the name of the provence. Names of the shopping centers are often little-used, in favor of the center's location or the name of it's most well-known store, so the number of hits for "Markville Shopping Centre" isn't really relevant. The point still stands that Walmarts in many cities have a level of notability on a par with, or even surpassing, that of the idividual Mills chain mall in the area. Blackcats 22:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm looking at your search results, and many of them still don't direct to the actual Markville Wal-Mart location. For example:
    ServiceOntario Kiosks - Locations - the Walmart highlighted indicates a store in Kitchener, Ontario and another in Dufferin Mall, Toronto.
    Supply Chain Systems Magazine Features - Markham simply refers to the location of the company; the Wal-Mart highlighted is only a generic reference to the company.
    Business Solutions - Put RFID In Your Network's Line Of Sight - the company is based in Markham; Wal-Mart is only one of its clients.
    CNW Group - The Wal-Mart being referred to is in Mississauga, not Markham.
    The fact is Wal-Marts are rather ubiquitous where I live; as I mentioned before there's some 21 within the Greater Toronto Area. Everyone calls that particular store "the Walmart at Markville", not Markham. There's only one Vaughan Mills in the GTA, let alone all of Canada. --Madchester 23:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Boothy443. --Holderca1 20:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Each Mills mall has its own distinct identity; they're regional shopping centres so they have to cater to the tastes of their particular regions. They're also magnets for (tourist) shoppers because of their size, something that can't be said for Wal-Mart, which has hundreds of locations with a homogenized selection of products. Unlike Wal-Mart, each mall has its own distinct set of stores, attractions (skate parks, go kart tracks, bowling alleys, etc.) and architecture.
    • I think you miss the point that Mills Corp is both a brand and a retail developer. A lot of malls were built by a single developer. For example, Cadillac Fairview owns a portfolio of shopping centres throughout Canada including the Toronto Eaton Centre, Fairview Mall, Les Galeries d'Anjou, and Toronto-Dominion Centre, yet I don't see anyone making a fuss of removing those articles because they're all part of the same chain. --Madchester 21:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very dubious about how much "distinct identity" any of these malls have. Wal-Marts will cater their selection to their location as well. For example, the Wal-Marts in North Dakota have a much larger selection of winter coats than the Wal-Marts in Florida, which have a much larger selection of swimming suits. Also, none of the malls you listed there are noteworthy either, and just becuase someone hasn't gotten around to proposing them for deletion yet doesn't mean they're deserving of inclusion. Blackcats 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gurnee Mills is one of the widest-known malls in the Chicago area and surrounding states. Gurnee Mills is definitely a tourist spot, it's located right next to Six Flags Great America. --Interiot 21:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet this supposed tourist hot-spot barely gets four times the hits of Gurnee, I'llinois's Wal-Mart! [34] [35]

Blackcats 22:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Frankly, the nomination is absurd.--Nicodemus75 21:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The real absurdity is thinking that there's anything ecyclopedic about all of these individual malls. Blackcats 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sir, Concord Mills is the largest tourist destination in the state of North Carolina. What's absurd is you think that it's not notable. --Golbez 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's very misleading (not to mention un-sourced) to call it "the largest tourist destination in the state of North Carolina." The Concord Mills article is at least honest enough to admit that "no distinction made between visitors to the mall who are locals and those who travel over larger distances to get to the mall." If I go shopping at a local mall in my area, I don't think most people would call me a "tourist." Concord Mills gets barely more Google hits than Concord, NC's Wal-Mart [36] [37], and far fewer than notable tourist destinations like Kitty Hawk [38]. Blackcats 22:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dishonest, perhaps, but still true. As for the source, I suppose I could find the issue of the Independent Tribune or Charlotte Observer which mentioned it, but all things in time. And PS - Concord has two Wal-Marts now, so that's ever so slightly unfair. Yes, I know Kitty Hawk and the speedway are more notable, but they get fewer visitors. Sad, but true. --Golbez 23:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. --Golbez 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gurnee Mills one of the most notable malls in the U.S Concord Mills and Potomac Mills Delete the rest --JAranda | watz sup 22:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)* Del Amo Fashion Center Keep also --JAranda | watz sup 22:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except, Marley Station, Franklin Mills, Dover Mall, Katy Mills, Lakeforest Mall, The Block at Orange, St. Louis Mills, and Cincinnati Mills. All of those and that should be a clear delete by itself and a Delete vote for me --JAranda | watz sup 22:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Opry Mills It is 100 miles away from my city, but is a popular destination day trip for shopping and entertainment. Also a theme park, Opryland USA, was replaced with this very notable mall. Wendell 23:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all with one single unified page instead. Hats off to Blackcats for going to the effort of making this multiple nomination. The comparisons between Walmart and these malls are almost entirely irrelevant. It seems like people have found one tiny argument made (that the malls are no more notable than walmarts) that they feel confident in rebutting, and pounced on it, with disregard for all the good, simple reasons for deletion. These are not notable malls. None, even the "famous" ones, merit an article on it's own. Tourist hot-spot? Is any place where a tourist goes considered a tourist attraction? These places are not akin to Rodeo Drive; people do not choose a holiday destination for the privelage of going to malls like these. The strong support for keeping this stuff baffles me. --Qirex 23:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If nothing else, one way to determine notability is by having people who live near the malls vote on it, based on their perception of how significant the mall is to their region. Only the vote can determine that. Also, I don't think that articles about corporations should go out of their way to tout how notable they are (square feet of space, number of visitors, tax revenue, percentile rankings, etc), as that makes the article start to read like a corporate advertisement. --Interiot 23:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Qirex makes some important points. Too much attention was paid to the Walmart analogy, which though useful was not the best one. A more apt comparison would be to other chains that usually just have one store per metropolitain area and can draw customers from the surrounding region - stores like Cabela's or tourist hangouts like the Hard Rock Cafe. While these chains are both notable, none of their individual stores are, in spite of some regional variation between them. As Qirex also noted, in order for a mall to be considered a bonified tourist draw, it has to be a primary motivating factor that induces people to travel to the area, not just a place they might happen to stop at while they're there or on the way there. Additionally, if the claim of siginficant uniqueness of any of the stores is to hold water, they have to also be a primary motivating factor for significant numbers of people who live in close proximity to one Mills Mall to travel significant distance to visit another. Many thousands of people who live in the Boston area travel to San Fransisco each year to experience its unique culture and attractions (and vice versa), but I highly doubt that hardly anyone who lives in Cincinnati Ohio (near the Cincinnati Mills) would travel to Toronto or Charlotte areas (with a primary motivation being) to visit the Vaughan Mills or the Concord Mills. So therefore there's no unique notability. Blackcats 01:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a ridiculous comparison. Libraries don't need to qualify as tourist attractions to be included (though Chicago's, with its unique history, probably would qualify). Chicago is famous for it's "L" system. Also, commercial businesses are held to higher standards of notability than public landmarks in order to avoid advertising. And individual stores within a chain must be held to especially high standards. Metro-Chicago may be known to some people in Rockford or Bloomington as a big city where they can go to shop at big malls, but someone from St. Louis or Cincinati (with their own Mills stores) isn't likely to travel to the Chicago area to shop at the Gurnee Mills. If it were a unique tourist attraction then they would. Blackcats 02:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users who write articles about companies are held to a higher standard, the articles themselves aren't. With the keep votes we have here, it shouldn't be hard to find editors in good standing who are willing to re-write anything written by the Mills Corporation themselves. --Interiot 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's the point of a Mills store. It isn't suppose to draw in everyone across the continent. It's suppose to be a regional shopping destination. They're suppose to draw in people for day trips and coach tours. It's just the same way that the Six Flags theme parks are suppose to draw in visitors from the local region.
Similarly, take a look at the wealth of localized television, radio, and newspaper station articles on Wikipedia. Do people in (as in your example) Chicago care that St. Louis's CBS affiliate is KMOV or that the local daily is the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch'? You need to cater to all audiences, as I mentioned elsewhere, according to WP:Importance, if there are multiple contributors to an article, it is already indicative of its significance.--Madchester 02:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree with the Hard Rock Cafe mention. Every one of the individual restaurants are unique and most if not all are definitely notable. Also, I know a lot of women that plan trips out of town just to go shopping and particular malls are the draw for them. --Holderca1 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The problem with that analogy is that Hard Rock Cafes are still more commonplace than Mills locations. There's only 25 or so Mills locations globally; there's 143 Hard Rock Cafes worldwide. A better example would be comparing them to the Six Flags franchise; which have a comprable number of locations. Each park is part of the main brand, but they still have individually distinct rides and themed areas. Likewise in the article, "Shopping in a native land, it indicates that "a unique hallmark of Mills centres, aside from their collection of discount stores, is the attempt to draw on local geographical or cultural motifs and iconography in the design of the shopping centres."
Looking at Wikipedia:Importance, one of the criteria states that if "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)." then it is worthy of inclusion. If you look at the edit history of these articles, many of them were written by multiple contributors. Just because you're not familiar with the impact and significance of the mall, doesn't mean that other people do not. Likewise, I just realized that Kompeito is a type of sweet Japanese candy and that San Fran had an XFL team called the San Francisco Demons. Just because I'm not familiar with that aspect of local culture or history, doesn't mean that it's insignificant. --Madchester 02:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all rolling them into the Mills Corporation unified page instead. I haven't seen anything notable in the sub articles. I've been to both Ontario Mills and Potomac Mills and I can't remember the difference other than location, and it's not like the two pages tell me much. Potomac Mills may be the #10 destination in Virginia, but the #7 destination is Williamsburg Pottery, and that's not in Wikipedia, either. -- FRCP11 23:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's no different than the articles for subway systems and having a separate article for each and every indivdual station within its network. --Madchester 23:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (though I also would be okay with redirecting them all to the main article). Individual malls do not pass any of the traditional senses of "encyclopedic". As economic entities, none of them meet our generally accepted criteria for inclusion. These articles are more like advertising copy than real articles. They include directory listings of stores, directions to the mall, etc. These are the contents of the marketing brochure, not an encyclopedia. We make exceptions for truly notable malls - entities which have an impact well outside their immediate area. I could find no evidence supporting such an exception in any of these cases. Drawing in customers from a multi-state area does not, in my mind, meet the necessary level. Furthermore, I find the arguments about "consistency" and "precedent" unpersuasive. Just because we haven't yet deleted other equally non-encyclopedic articles does not mean that we should perpetuate the mistake here. Rossami (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:Rossami Pilatus 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers says that you should 'consider the audience in your writing.' Just because some of the information is regionally specific doesn't mean its irrevelant. --Winning-Eleven 00:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: While it's true that articles should strive to be useful, many useful things are not encyclopedic and do not rightfuly have a place in Wikipedia. Check out WP:NOT for a list of things that Wikipedia is not. Many of these are quite useful things, but just not part of Wikipedia's mission. And Wikipedia is certainly not the yellow pages or any sort of business directory, though those sort of things are certainly useful to many people. Blackcats 02:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Each of these malls also has its own unique history. For instance, Cincinnati Mills started its days as Forest Fair Mall, which struggled for a long time and underwent numerous alterations and such, and also weathered a fire at some point in its history [39]. So the way I see it, we're not only thinking about these mall pages as far as describing present offerings, but also thinking about retail history buffs, for instance, whose interest is on how these malls came to be in their current situations. So I think there's definitely reason for all of the individual pages to exist, and also plenty of room to expand these articles, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And the results of the Google test is:
Store Google Groups
Arizona Mills 126k 280
Arundel Mills 124k 189
Cincinnati Mills 50k 20
Concord Mills 129k 128
Del Amo Fashion Center 21k 194
Dover Mall 49k 36
Franklin Mills 109k 903
Pittsburgh Mills 54k 14
Galleria at White Plains 143k 328
Great Mall of the Bay Area 35k 138
Gurnee Mills 100k 54
Katy Mills 82k 154
Lakeforest Mall 43k 369
Marley Station 47k 228
Ontario Mills 134k 558
Opry Mills 157k 357
Southdale Center 85k 43
St. Louis Mills 76k 32
The Block at Orange 81k 158
Vaughan Mills 61k 18

--Interiot 02:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is very strange to say that Vaughan Mills is not notable. Its opening was reported on TV as a worthy news item. And it is bigger than Fairview Mall and the Toronto Eaton Centre. If this is deleted you have to delete all the malls in Toronto. Makes absolutely no sense.—Wing 03:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. According to this site, each of these malls are drawing 10-25 million visitors annually. Even allowing for repeat visits, this figure more than meets the criterion from Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines which states a company should be included if "the company has more than one million customers." Logically the criterion should apply equally to subsidiaries of a single company like the individual Mills malls. These are not ordinary malls; they do a huge amount of business and are dominant in local retail. They dwarf most downtown commercial districts in both economic scope and square feet. Are they largely similar to each other? Sure, but so are lots of things that have articles in Wikipedia. --D Monack 03:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As per D Monack, Wing, et al.: the prevalence and importance of the category (and constituents) requires its retention. Speaking of which: what of historic Todmorden Mills in TO? :) E Pluribus Anthony 03:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps merge 'em into one article. E Pluribus Anthony 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into some nice central article. Renata3 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. We're never going to reach concensus, but we might as well keep them since we've already created them. They should have been described individually in a central article at first and the notable ones would have grown into separate articles. If someone wants to go to the trouble, perhaps they could be merged. --TantalumTelluride 05:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep in light of new comments. I personally had never heard of these "mills," but apparently they are each unique, verifiable, important locally, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --TantalumTelluride 04:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wonder if a tweek in Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines could help address this? Maybe some should not be kept, but without a benchmark it is hard to say. Vegaswikian 05:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, without prejudice against a later renomination once some reasonable standards of notability are established, because the current ones are broken. There are probably hundreds, possibly thousands of Wal-Marts and McDonalds that fit the criteria (X number of cutomers) that these largely interchangable malls are being held to, and that indicates to me that the current rules are broken. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep shite malls. --SPUI (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as per Boothy443 as well. ErikNY 12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All--WAHooker 14:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Mills is on the leading edge of retail and the projects associated with them have a huge impact on communities, economics, and trends in retail. The articles need to be developed further and it looks like there are many people here who have information about the articles that can be used to strengthen them. An article should not be deleted because it appears weak and someone therefore thinks it is not notable. Most articles start off small and need time to grow. These articles have been growing due to the contributions of many users. They need more time to develop. Information should be added to them about when they were first opened, the retail concepts used, and what makes them unique. For those that want to delete these, please instead focus your energy on making articles in Wikipedia better, rather than trying to rip away the work of others. 24.240.204.226 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who has lived by two of the Mills malls as well in a small town where WalMart was the economic powerhouse for the area, the comparison is a severely mistaken one. However, I feel that many of you miss the point here. I don't see any point in deleting them. Are we running out of space? I mean, I frankly don't care whether they're one page or many, as long as the search gets the information. But since they're already there, is there a point in merging them? I mean, it is very mistaken to say that Potomac Mills, for example, isn't a notable landmark for Virginia, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia. Lakeforest Mall isn't nearly as important, but it's a fairly major landmark for the DC Metro Area. From what I've read, a number of the other malls serve as economic and social epicenters throughout multiple states, as well. And while I've lived near the largest WalMart on the east coast, and I've known people to cross state lines to come to said WalMart, they come because they don't have a WalMart. And the state line is mere miles away. It's hardly analogous, unless you're ignoring scale entirely. Moreover, I hardly think the information on the articles is advertising. It served as merely informative, for me. I hope I'm not giving other people too much credit when I say I think that they'll see it the same way. So as long as there are no plans to delete relevant information about the individual malls (location, notable features, etc), I don't care whether it's one article or twenty, though I don't really see the point of consolidation. SchrodingersRoot 15:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is SchrodingersRoot's first and only contribution to wikipedia (link) --Qirex 10:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It's not even a vote for heaven's sake.--Nicodemus75 10:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:AFD, Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). The user has explained his/her points clearly with andectdotal evidence; it should still be considered. --Madchester 19:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to imply that SchrodingersRoot's comment should be discounted entirely, and I meant no harm by it. I think it is important for users to recognise which comments are made by established users and which are made by anon IPs / very new users, and weigh the arguments as they see fit. Fundamentally, the reason I wrote that is that I'm wary of who says what in discussions like these – it's common for companies to attempt to have a hand in the zeitgeist of the internet through popular community spaces like wikipedia. --Qirex 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Boothy443. Those Google numbers are also pretty impressive. However, I do agree that Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information/Notability and inclusion guidelines is slightly broken. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Although I hate shopping malls of all sorts, they're factual, verifiable, and local notability is very clear. Unfocused 04:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep, with the proviso that I'm in favour of a policy discussion on the notability or lack thereof of local shopping facilities, not of simply upholding the status quo as a permanent consensus. Bearcat 23:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Potomac Mills, for example, is among the top tourist attractions in the State of Virginia. ---Aude 00:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I strongly disagree with the broad statement that individual malls do not merit their own articles unless they are "famous". First, I have real problems with someone outside of Canada determining what is "famous" or "distinct" in Canada. Case in point: someone above mentioned that (s)he didn't think that the Toronto Eaton Centre has a "distinct identity" worthy of an article, which is downright wrong given the centre's history and status in both Toronto and Canada. Someone in Texas might never have heard of it, but since when is that the test for inclusion?
Vaughan Mills, as the first Canadian Mills mall, has had significant land use and retail implications for this country, and although these impacts have not yet been fully explored in the Vaughan Mills article (the mall just opened recently), I think it's just plain incorrect to suggest that these issues could be properly addressed in a general Mills article that deals primarily with U.S. issues.
In this day and age, malls and retail centres often function as community and local landmarks. While such malls might not, upon a quick glance, seem "distinct" to someone who is not from that area, those centres are often of great importance to that local and broader areas. For that reason, I can't say whether some of the other Mills malls are worthy of individual articles or not, because I'm from Ontario, and frankly I can't speak to the importance of say, a Mills mall in Florida, to the people in that state. I think these determinations should be left to the people who actually know these places. Skeezix1000 20:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add - I do agree with some of the comments made about these articles being "advertising" for the malls and or mall owners. I've seen a few of these articles that come across as promotional copy (even though they might not have actually been written by the mall's marketing people). Although I don't agree that the articles should all be deleted, this particular problem does merit attention. Skeezix1000 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Southdale Mall was the first fully enclosed shopping center in the United States. It set the standard for the common malls that we see all over the world today. I think that at least the Southdale Center Article should be kept.--Gephart 07:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! Maybe a single entry for the rest of the Mills malls would be appropriate, but the Southdale shopping center is a landmark event for the social and cultural study of mall history (and people really do study this--see James Farrell's book One Nation Under Goods: Malls and the Seductions of American Shopping, Smithsonian, 2003). Subsuming this entry into an article about the Mills mall chain or whatever it is would be a patently bad idea.--TheChickens 08:13, 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 (discounting IPs). Robert T | @ | C 20:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vosh[edit]

Supposedly about a parody magazine, but I can't confirm that it even exists. Even if it does, it almost certainly doesn't qualify as notable--it was originally created for a Current Events class. Googling on the phrase "Vosh magazine" gets 2 hits, both WP mirrors. Even a search for +Vosh +magazine gets only 1500 hits, and those appear not to be relevant--this magazine was not mentioned within the top 30. Meelar (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google returns nothing. I think they're bringing the parody here: "VOSH came to an end when the syndication deal terminated. Despite the short run, VOSH has had a tremendous cult following and several magazines have tried to capture the feel and design." Marskell 09:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I have heard of this magazine. I am not affiliated with the creators at all. I believe this article is about a magazine that has reached cult status in a particular state that neither of you live, which is understandable. However, to the people living in this state this article has perdenance and should be kept to please everyone. -BK
  • Don't delete For those who don't believe in the magazine's existance, I can fully backup its unbreathed animitity. Although the result of a google search shows less reassuring evidence, it is probably because of the lesser amount of publication about the magazine. The comeback startled my friends and me. We all got out out wallets to purchase the hilarity known as Vosh. Beleive what you want, but the truth is known by myself. I don't personally know the creators, but it's apparen that they enjoy any form of public attention, and deleting this would sadden the creators and might affect the content of the magazine----Ej Streib
  • Don't Delete I have never heard of this magazine, but I think that the fact that google shows limited results does not permit deletion. There are other mediums that this magazine might be well known as. As for saying "they're bringing the parody here", if you can't prove it's wrong, you're at no position to say that. I've seen worse articles on this site. It's only fair to leave this one here. -I don't have a screen name but I browse Wiki frequently.
  • Keep This is Mazeman, creator of the article. The magazine started, as the article states, in a Current Events class that I attended as well. Big things can start in small places. I knew the creators, Johnson and Soldiers, quite well and I was behind them when they sent in VOSH to a small syndication company in New York. The first seven issues sold nearly 200 each, which, for a magazine that started in a Current Events class, was huge. Their was a critic working at the syndication that did look over the issues. I assure you this magazine is real and, just because its not huge, or on Google, it does not deserve to be deleted from this site.-[[User:Mazeman|User:Mazeman/Sig]] ]
  • Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 01:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Don't Delete I can see why you'd want to remove this article, but I want you to tell me why it should stay. Point out some positives. Just because the magazine doesn't affect you (nor does it affect me) I'm sure it is a form of formal reference for the curious few that want to find something out.

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

The result of the debate was listed at redirects for deletion, so no result. Robert T | @ | C 04:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo High School (New York)[edit]

I moved Waterloo High School from this article. I changed the links to that article, so now this redirect page is an orphan. I don't know what the policy is for orphaned redirect pages, but I think this one should be deleted.--D-Day 20:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --D-Day 20:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought we had RfD for this purpose? Wcquidditch | Talk 21:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did not see that. Thank you.--D-Day 21:58, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Collar Fugitives[edit]

This band does not appear to be noteworthy (see the guideline WP:MUSIC). -- Super Aardvark 19:27, 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 Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. (Note I dod not do teh deleteion, i am just closing the afd) DES (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White star army[edit]

Non-notable nonsense Nameneko 01:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability, or anything else. TheMadBaron 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 03:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At best, it runs contrary to the interests of wikipedia, at worst, plain nonsense. --Qirex 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Qirex and TheMadBaron. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshinoya Rant[edit]

Some non-notable joke in chat sites. Renata3 19:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on a lot of cultural memes. I don't see any harm in keeping it. At the very most it could be merged with the 2chan article. --68.83.8.113 04:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 09:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the non-existent kopipe article... —Philip N.✉ 12:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not keep, then at least Merge with the 2channel article, or with the Internet memes article. -203.218.142.199 07:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign in. Breathstealer 07:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 20:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Chuan Xiong[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Claims to have released albums on major records, so passes WP:MUSIC. Article needs a lot of clean up, though. --A D Monroe III 18:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to pass WP:MUSIC and verifiable with google. I've added {{cleanup}} and {{copyedit}} chowells 22:33, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 13:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Zoeken[edit]

Personal essay, bad title, not-encyclopedic. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 01:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POV essay in the wrong namespace with a title not explained in the article itself. --Metropolitan90 02:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Diatribe. TheMadBaron 02:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Anetode 07:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay. Wrong namespace. Hard-to-follow grammar. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. as above and badly written too. Gaius Cornelius 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above.—Gaff ταλκ 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteStu 02:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteprashanthns
  • Delete per all of the above. Johntex\talk 23:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title means "Search" in Dutch, and it's a somewhat sloppy translation, possibly by Babelfish. Nevertheless the topic has some merit. Rename to History of The Netherlands after WWII or thereabouts, slap on NPOV and cleanup tags, and keep. Radiant_>|< 10:32, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_23&oldid=1081093455"