Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

Purge server cache

October 25[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 Wrestling Alliance (1WA)[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. Wackymacs 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN organization. Their web site (watch out for popup ads) has no information and this thread seems to indicate they're rather insignificant. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and previous comment tv316 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.' Just looks like a bunch of kids putting themselves over. RGTraynor 11:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above Forbsey 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gotta agree with everyone else on this one. --Bachrach44 02:11, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6th Pursuit Squadron[edit]

No context, sources, anything! Could be made up. Dan100 (Talk) 20:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easily verifiable via Google search for 6th Pursuit Squadron Philippine Army Air Corps. Needs to be cleaned up, though. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs a LOT of help and should be tagged appropriately, but it's clearly a legitimate topic and the article could provide another Wikipedian with a starting point to add more stuff and clean it up. A2Kafir 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abducted The Movie[edit]

Apparent vanity page, notability not established

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acid rock (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete. Acid rock (disambiguation) has (and is only likely to have) two entries, one of which is acid rock. An article describing the other (geological) sense is linked prominently from the acid rock article. Although the software program ACID Rock could be included here, that need is mitigated by a redirect from ACID Rock to ACID (software). – Ringbang 16:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete per nom. —Cryptic (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dab pages should always have at least three entries, or they should be handled via dab links, per WP:D. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:32, 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 07:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adamolmazlar[edit]

Hoax. Zero google hits. --202.156.6.54 00:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish suffixes may be the problem that prevents a healthy google search. Search instead for "adamolmaz," "adam olmaz," or "adam olmazlar." The "lar" at the end of the word simply makes a word plural. Languages like English or Chinese are very analytic, and analytic languages have an advantage for internet searches. Synthetic languages like Latin or agglutinating languages such as Japanese or Turkish don't do so well because the root of the word, which is what you find in the dictionary, is not used by itself; suffixes are added onto it.

  • Comment. I was able to verify that some of the names given in the article are, in fact, academics in mathematics and philoshopy. I am not sure why a negative Google search would be evidence of a hoax. More likely a non-notable "movement" which could be kept as a stub or deleted if unverifiable (by Google or other reference). Dystopos 22:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kemp[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think being formally thanked by Tony Blair at some meeting or other is a claim to notability. With no verifiable or indeed causative link between his work and the passage of the quoted legislation, I see no other possible claim to notability so speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. (I've held off tagging the article, though, in case someone disagrees with me.) Sliggy 19:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sliggy. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Sliggy. MCB 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of tagging the article {{nn-bio}}, in light of the above. Sliggy 15:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Speedy tag removed; AfD only. Sliggy 11:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Youngamerican 02:55, 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 No consensus (keep) (1d, 2k, 1a) with one sock-puppet voting discounted. This afd should not be held as a reason against a second nomination at some future time, as there was limited participation, and sock-puppeteering. --Scimitar parley 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty Gaylords[edit]

Not convinced this gang is notable. "Almighty Gaylords" (including quotes) garners only 221 hits on google, 95% of which are just keyword spamming and completely out of context. StarryEyes 23:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. StarryEyes 23:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nomination Joe Butera What do I need to prove the fact that the Almighty Gaylords were around prior to the Vice Lords? I have a newspaper article which is copyright March 3, 1954, but I cannot publish it without permission from the Chicago Tribune. I see a simuliar article pertaining to the Motorcycle Club - The Hells Angels - which I see as a biased opinion against the motercycle club. I will accept all opinions and concerns. I am not on Wikipedia to be a tyrant! Starry, if you think that the Gaylords are a myth, go back to the page and click on the external links concerning gang research for Chicago. In the section on Latino gangs, Latino Gang beginnings which states half way down that the Gaylords were around in the 1930s and 1940s, the only white gang listed. (UTC)
    • It's not that they don't exist, the question is are they notable and well known enough in the greater community to deserve an article. The Hells Angels is one of your given examples - they should remain because worldwide, if you drop the term "Hells Angels", most people will know what you're talking about. Saberwyn 04:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all Mr. Butera, much as I like your choice of font, you clearly have a vested interest in the article (since you're the only one who has made contributions to it, and it is one of your few contributions to Wikipedia), and thus you should say so up front. Second, I am not doubting the the existence of the gang, and I am not saying they are a myth. The point is that they are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
    • I copied your font. Yes, I am new to the forum. Yes, I do not have many, if any, other contributions to the forum. I hope that you took the time to look up the references that I added to this discussion. If so, you would see that the Gaylords are more than Chicago related spam, but a well known street gang. The research I have done has been used by U of I - Chicago and the Gang Research foundation. I was following the guidelines that I saw being used by another gang related entry - the Insane Popes. Included in the Insane Pope entry, the Gaylords were given credit as the largest white Chicago street gang. I hope that this debate is about the content and not bias against street gang material on this forum, because street gangs are a part of US history whether we want to accept it or not. The fact that a book Lords of Lawndale and a documentary Documentary would give the subject matter some kind of credibility. Much respect to yourself and others either way! [[User:jbutera JoeButera]] 04:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What do I need to do to get this page up to standards? I made a few changes, but trying to defend against the name being spam is a matter of opinion at best. I feel the fact that a book and a documentary, and my links proving these facts, prove that the Gaylords were a significant part of Chicago gang History.[[User:jbutera JoeButera]] 04:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete gaylord.We are alive and well.Ask any adult Chicagoan,born,raised here and they'll tell you what a gaylord is.Hey Saberwyn,appreciate your opinion,but just what is your true motivation?player712 www.gaylords712.com Hey Starry eyes, I also appreciate your opinion but the Records page needs your attention. Joe Butera,Good Job.We'll see to it Gaylords stays put.The point is The Gang is "notable eneugh" for inclusion in an encyclopedia.Apparently Mr.Butera & I are'nt the only ones that think so ,considering GAYLORD was included prior to our "contribution".

  • Keep.

Delete this after I just found it?! No way. I grew up in Chicago in the sixities, and the Gaylords were a part of the street scene no matter where you went. Now that I'm forced to be an adult, and have to travel for a living, it's amazing the number of people I come into contact with who are interested in "Greaser" culture, and who are aware of the Gaylords as purveyors of same.

Please, you have to look at this in the context of the times, and through the same lens as those who would be searching for them. Certainly, a word as common as "gaylord" will have numerous hits in any search, but then, most any word that isn't inherently exclusive will. The Gaylords, whether viewed from California or Chicago, are simply iconic. To delete them because of a misperception that they aren't universally known would be a mistake. To equate them with the Hell's Angel's M.C. would be a mistake. No member of the Almighty Gaylords has ever been indicted or convicted of racketeering, which is a claim the H.A.M.C. can't make. I believe that what you say when you say that they don't have the same name recognition factor as the H.A.M.C. is that they aren't as infamous, aren't as titillating as the Angels are.

Let the entry stand.

Sieg 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable historic subject. Dystopos 22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstaining, because I'm sick and tired of the notability-as-a-deletion-criteria debate. Until a definite set of regs concerning notability are provided, I'm removing myself from any debates where I support the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point of view as a reason for deletion. Saberwyn 09:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Omega[edit]

Non-notable local chapter of a national organization. tregoweth 01:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 02:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry guys... National Fraternities are notable, but local chapters of a national fraternity are not.--Isotope23 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, individual chapters not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_free_host_or_webspace_provider. Those articles would be much better located on an external hosting provider, so you can have forums, mailto forms, etc.--inksT 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I wholeheartedly support the existence of an article about the national Alpha Phi Omega but not articles about the individual chapters. Student organizations that exist at only a single school (i.e. fraternity chapters) are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ALL IN GROUP per nomination.-- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All nn, per above. Procedurally, these should have been listed in a single vote. Dottore So 10:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Isotope's, Metropolintan90's, argument. KillerChihuahua 11:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Alpha Phi Omega chapters are typically notable within the state and region (as defined by the national organization) for many service accomplishments. Chapters may also have famous/notable alumnus. --Animosity 11:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. Individual chapters of organizations are inherently non-notable.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Non-notable fratcruft. Paul 16:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    •  RasputinAXP  and Paul, I ask that you refrain from making comments such as with fire, with prejudice and ____cruft that seem intended to inflame the anger of those who disagree with you, and that create a hostile, combative environment in the deletion forums. Such comments in the deletion forum from both sides of a debate are at the root of a large number of user conduct RFCs. Because article authors here in defense of their efforts are so frequently unfamiliar with the deletion forums until their article is here, I'd also ask that you grant them a little extra leeway in this regard, but also feel free to give them similar instruction to keep their debate based on factual terms. Unfocused 15:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fiery and passionate I am, esp. when it comes to issues of notability...but I used the words I used for a reason. "Prejudice" isn't an insulting or attack word, it means "delete this article and any like it," i.e., let this set a precedent. "Fratcruft" is not meant to be insulting, it simply denotes (imho) unencyclopedic material similar to fancruft. Wikilove to all. Paul 06:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These individual chapters are obviously unique enough to warrant articles separate from Alpha Phi Omega. Unfocused 17:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. And for the record, I was never a member of any fraternity. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the chapters. StarryEyes 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lord. As usual, no fratcruft required. Wikipedia is not a free_host or webspace provider, and that's what's here.
  • Delete - A non-notable local chapter of a national organization. --Camw 06:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have cleaned up the page for readability and moved the discussion of notability et cetera to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alpha Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Omega. Please place further comments there.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNon notable.-Dakota 04:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to American Revolution. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American independence[edit]

Speedy Delete or Redirect. Currently filled with garbage from some disgruntled student. Should be redirected to Declaration of Independence (United States). - Sensor 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to American Revolution. The article explains that the author wanted some information on that topic and it is what a person searching for the information would probably be after and then they can select what they're after then. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to be bold and redirected to American Revolution. AFD withdrawn. - Sensor 01:28, 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 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American solidarity[edit]

Non-notable organization - viewing source on their incorrectly added members list shows twelve member blogs. — ceejayoz talk 00:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 00:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without establishment of notability. -LtNOWIS 01:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. *drew 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - maybe we'll cover them at a later date if their group takes off, but it's a little soon right now. — Haeleth Talk 20:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:VANITYFRS 23:12, 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 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Reis[edit]

Non-notable high school athlete, possibly vanity. 196 Google hits, most of which are about different people. Paul 16:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity.--Alhutch 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Haven't we made it clear enough that you don't write articles about yourself yet? Average Earthman 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity! Poorly written article, too. Ugh. Devotchka 00:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World class athlete. Will rep aus one day. Ull hear more of this guy soon so mite as well keep.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew van noordenburg[edit]

Past edits had no real information that would make this person notable. However, Google brings up 61 hits for "Andrew van noordenburg" so this may be just in need of major expansion and cleanup. -Nameneko 05:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gets fewer Google hits than I do. When I get a wikipedia page, then he can have a wikipedia page. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He gets fewer hits than I do, too. (But then I do get 13,100. ☺) One of his hits is a link to a (now off-line) story in the Herald Sun telling us (only) that this person is one member of an under-16's Aussie rules team. The WP:BIO criteria are not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G 11:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page has been blanked so may well qualify for a speedy delete. According to a search of Australian papers that I did through my local library, he is a leading player in the Geelong Falcons Under 16 AFL team. While he may become a notable Australian Football League player one day, for now he doesn't meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO and should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Woodman[edit]

Vanity, NN, says he is published but I can find no evidence of that, from the date page also edited [1] he is 21 years old. See also Woodman, Andrew. - cohesion | talk 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of publication in a notable form is provided. Average Earthman 19:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots o' self-published poets out there. I agree with Avg. Earthman. A2Kafir 22:57, 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 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ayer Killing Spree[edit]

non notable band. CambridgeBayWeather 17:36, 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 07:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Analysis and Security Engine[edit]

Delete. Promotional article for a relatively minor software project with less than 900 non-Wikipedia hits in Google. Submitted by an anonymous user. – Ringbang 16:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. All your Basic Analysis and Security Engine (BASE) are belong to us (sorry, couldn't resist). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by DragonflySixtyseven as attempt to communicate. --GraemeL (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. Rich Archive[edit]

An attempt to use Wikipedia resources to publicize a non-notable data collection effort. Maybe this warrants a single sentence in B.C. Rich, but not an article of its own. Page has also been blanked repeatedly. jni 07:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am one of the workers who is a member of the BC Rich Archive. WE offer afree information sewrvice to anyone who requests it. We do not make money, we do not take money. We offer free services for those who request data from us on these vintage instruments which are becoming rarer every day.

There are very few people on het planet that can offer the info we provide, even BC Rich themselves cannot offer the info we provide in most cases.

I see no reason why this page should be deleted, however it is quite anoying that hackers keep interfering and editing our information.

Thanks. demonx

  • Delete - Sorry. Non-profit doesn't change the fact that this just does not belong in an encyclopedia. TexasAndroid 13:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I've tagged it speedy as CSD:A4 (an attempt to correspond with owners of B.C. Rich Guitars). See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion Articles #4 for the exact criteria. I appreciate what the Archive is trying to do, but there are very clear rules against creating articles that are attempts to correspond with people, even for non-profit reasons. There are lots of other ways to publicize what you are trying to do (and incidentally these ways are less prone to wanton editing by random vandals): Blogs, Message Boards, etc. Good luck in your efforts!--Isotope23 13:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Demonx, if you see this, might I suggest you add an external link to the B.C Rich Archive on the B.C. Rich article? I don't imagine anyone will have a big problem with that.--Isotope23 15:02, 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 08:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beefroot[edit]

The author claimed it's a "rare vegetable" and "herbivorous creature". Is it related to Beet? I can't find more info on the net. Probably hoax. Delete and sent to BJAODN. --*drew 01:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - possibly intended as a pun on the NZ (and elsewhere?) name for beets - beetroot - but this is a hoax. Ziggurat 01:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • NZ, Australia, UK, South Africa... most of the International English speaking world. Grutness...wha? 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and cook thoroughly as a hoax. Eddie.willers 03:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. "Beefroot is a rare micronesian vegtable...or is it? The rare micronesian beefroot or Bubulus Radicula in scientific terms is often considered nonvegetarian because of its bovine nature." A bovine nonvegetarian vegetable? Capitalistroadster 03:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Author has stated that it is fictional. do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.60 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-25 09:36:03 UTC
  • As 202.156.6.60 (talk · contribs) has just stated, this is made up from whole cloth. Delete. Uncle G 11:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:-) material if ever there was any. — Haeleth Talk 21:11, 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 (keep) (1m, 2nv). --Scimitar parley 15:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian comics[edit]

This page is a fresh duplicate of the Franco-Belgian comics and List of comic creators. It's in contradiction with the principles behind the combinated Franco-Belgian comics page. And it has been linked to French authors comics !!! This article has not adde-value and should be deleted Lvr 14:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Lvr, What I suggest is to delete all Franco-Belgian comic artists from the page and give a link to the main article: Franco-Belgian comics. However, not all Belgian comic artists have connections with France, especially Flemish comic artists. Therefore there is a need for this page, though it's still very underdeveloped. Perhaps we could make here a short introductory page about Belgian comics, referring to the differences between Belgian comics (Flemish comics, Walloon/Brussels' comics, Franco-Belgian comics, other cooperation), each different type linked to the main page. Mjolnir1984. 18:04, 25 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Rho chapter of Alpha Phi Omega[edit]

Non-notable local chapter of national organization. tregoweth 01:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Fellow brothers they are trying to delete our chapter Wiki entries under the belief that they are non-notable. if you wish to also join in on the good fight please come post in the Alpha Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Omega entry. i am trying my best to defend our ideals by defending our chapter wiki's, i am doing this in hopes that it will help defend our organization's ideals and principles and spread our message of friendship, leadership, and service. by no means Tregoweth take this as something hostile, i am a firm believer in talking things out and dealing with things in a calm manner. i am doing this in the hopes to pursuade you in letting our chapter wiki's stay. besides i know just from hitting the random article link that there are better fish to fry out there. thanks for your time.Butterbean04 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. National fraternities are notable; local chapters are not.--Isotope23 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yea verily, O my brothers! As per Isotope23, it's hard to see how local frat chapters have any kind of established notability. Eddie.willers 03:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I wholeheartedly support the existence of an article about the national Alpha Phi Omega but not articles about the individual chapters. Student organizations that exist at only a single school (i.e. fraternity chapters) are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 04:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask on what basis are articles about these chapters being deleted ? To which fraternity do the delete voters belong ? Is the nomination (are the nominations) being made from an NPOV ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could someone explain what fraternity membership (or not) has to do with cruft? RGTraynor 11:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Church Sunday School[edit]

Non-notable. — ceejayoz talk 00:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 00:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It doesn't even say where the place is! - Sensor 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our Bethel article states that there are at least 15 places called Bethel in the world. This article does not specify which Bethel it refers nor does it explain which denomination church it is. This article doesn't state which Bethel this is in let alone explain why it is of interest to people living outside Bethel and active in that church. The article appears to be unverifiable and non-notable. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. *drew 01:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Note: some Googling confirms this is the Sunday school of Bethel Church which is also nominated for deletion; located in Sheldon, Iowa; website at http://www.bethelsheldon.com/sunday_school.asp Dpbsmith (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --rob 11:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. KillerChihuahua 11:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands of churches named "Bethel" (after the place where God commanded Jacob to build an altar.) General information about Sunday school belongs in that article, and particular information about notable individual churches belongs on those articles, not separatedi into articles about each church's sunday school. No redirect or disambiguation is called for. Dystopos 22:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Harris (character)[edit]

Redundant but unmergable with Lost in Translation; uncategorizable ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That someone thought this worthy of it's own page baffles me!Coyote-37 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. As usual, no deletion required. If someone looks for this character, they will be redirected to the game. If not, then who cares? Trollderella 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not any real need for an article on its own, but a characters subsection in Lost in Translation itself couldn't hurt. Karmafist 18:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems mergeable to me. AndyJones 22:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I would say merge, but looking at the Lost in Translation page it would be a bit difficult to merge it without messing with the fluidity of the page. This page can't get much bigger than it already is but I think (as a fan of the movie, so maybe I don't count) that it is at least slightly justified. There's no point in a character section of Lost in Translation because he's the only character with any notable history in the story.  freshgavin TALK   06:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bill Murray got a Best Actor nomination for the character and, though he didn't win the Oscar, was the pick of most critics. Charlotte is really the only other significant character in the movie, so a character list, as per above, is not needed, and I definitely think that an article that focuses on him is at least worthy of a place on a page outside the main article. --Frag 05:26, 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 (6d, 2m/r, or 75% delete)--Scimitar parley 17:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Sucks[edit]

Delete - Because there are so many chants in Major League Baseball, one article should be made to feature such entries, like Football chants. Otherwise an article of this nature seems excessive and non-encyclopedic, IMHO PJM 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The user who created the article did so to make a point, apparently to counter the Yankees Suck article. On first glance, it might seem like he has a point, however, upon further inspection, the Yankees Suck article is not just about a chant, but also about the heavily merchandised regional phenomenon, which stands in stark contrast to both the Boston Sucks chant and article. As a Red Sox fan living in New York City, I can tell you from first hand experiece that letting one and all know that "Boston Sucks", especially in the presence of a Red Sox fan, at times may seem like legit hobby vociferously employed at random moments by less tactful New Yorkers - however, as it stands, it's just a sports chant, and just an insult, a barely notable one at that. Bias be damned, Delete as NN and per WP:POINT. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely misunderstand my intention. I, as the creator of the article, am also a Red Sox fan who lives in New York City. The reason I created this article was because I saw that a Yankees Suck article existed and hadn't been deleted, so I tried my hand at making a Boston Sucks article. There was absolutely no malice intended and I apologize if it seemed that way. PersonDude 17:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...I didn't realize there was a Yankees Suck article until now. I redirected it to Red Sox Nation. I think it serves better as a section in that article than on its own. PJM 15:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reverted that pending any vote - I believe, as a merchandising phenomenon, the article warrants existance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I still think it would be better placed in Red Sox Nation. I'll place a merge tag on it and see what kind of feedback back comes in. If there's not much interest I'll remove the tag. PJM 03:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... cruft at its finest.--Isotope23 16:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yerrrr outta here! (meaning delete). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect much like PJM did with Yankees Suck. As a New Yorker (but Boston born, ironically) I can attest to hearing this chant many times. Notable enough for a nice little blurb, not enough for an entire article. StarryEyes 00:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. You have got to be kidding. RGTraynor 12:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect in some manner similar to those taken by PJM regarding Yankees Suck. Or merge all of this stuff to some article on the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry and redirect Youngamerican 03:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more of a POV article --JAranda | watz sup 23:39, 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. – ABCDe✉ 00:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Simpson[edit]

  • non notable artist/illustrator. Delete--Isotope23 16:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • noticable or not, he is an artist. don't delete'(preceeding unsigned by Timmyg)
  • Delete. vanity/ad page for non-notable artist. (with the NOT a crystal ball, NO original research, and the mm-hey) Dystopos 22:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Brobdingnag. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brobdingnagian[edit]

dicdef, send to Wiktionary BrainyBroad 05:14, 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 08:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboard box[edit]

Oh, please. Come on. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 23:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even though I know I'll get outvoted. Any noun pretty much gets voted keep. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • UncleG's rewrite has not changed my vote. Most of this is covered on Cardboard, and the article confuses solid cardboard (such as jigsaw puzzles), paperboard (such as cereal boxes), and corrugated cardboard. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. --Trovatore 23:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not an environmental issue like plastic shopping bags nor apparently otherwise significant. Gazpacho 23:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is obvious to anyone who knows the definition of cardboard and box. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cardboard, since pretty much everything covered in this article is covered there. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. At the moment the article doesn't look much, but there is a lot that could be written: box design, stacking rules, removable panels, rip features, cutting processes, printing processes etc. My partner works in manufacturing and says "there is so much to know" about the subject. GeorgeStepanek\talk 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. per GeorgeStepanek. StarryEyes 01:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Article has been significantly expanded by User:Uncle G. Nice work. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep on rewrite. Definitely encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G's rewrite and expand. Common object which may be humble but does not mean it does not have encylopedic potential. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Uncle G's rewrite, somewhat reluctantly (I still wonder if this couldn't be merged into packaging or some such, but I have to admit it's a significant article now). --Trovatore 03:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to rewrite tv316 04:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great rewrite! --Jacquelyn Marie 05:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we catch you in the backseat trying to pick her locks/we're gonna send you home to mother in a cardboard box!/You better run!  BD2412 talk 14:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Contains notable, verfiable (and interesting) information. --BenjaminTsai 15:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. nn (notable noun, that is :) ). Good outside-the-box, so-obvious-you-would-forget-to-write-it article. Youngamerican 03:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I originally created the article, and I feel that although it could most certainly do with being expanded and more useful information being added (as many people have done so excellantly already), it should not be deleted as there is much more to be said than just what has already been stated on the pages for "cardboard" and "box". For example, the appearance of cardboard boxes in contemporary art such as the new "Embankment" exhibition at the Tate Modern in London. 80.42.140.213 09:37, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris And Sachin: The Aldehydes[edit]

I think this would qualify as a vanity page but I've been wrong before. . . Nv8200p (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band. Being from New Zealand, they don't get a listing on AMG, but I can't find a relevant Google hit at all. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They're not at <www.muzic.net.nz>, which is usually a fairly safe bet for NZ bands. With an average age of 16 and no mention of any released recordings, I doubt there's much notability yet. Grutness...wha? 02:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Noisy | Talk 10:52, 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 relisting Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Who?[edit]

Horribly formatted and written Spongebob episode. I love Spongebob, but seriously, this must go. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has a summary further down the page and lists some useful facts. Keep, but removed empty headers and copyvio lyrics. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we do have means for having articles cleaned-up. That an article is of lower grade does not establish a lack of utility or verifiability, nor does it constitute a reason for deletion. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote & comment - the Wikipedia community should really try and reach a consensus on individual television episodes. In my opinion, the rule should be roughly the same as it is for individual songs: delete them all, even if it's a notable series, unless the episode is truly notable: a massive, sustaining cultural phenomenon on the level of Who Shot JR? (which, ironically, doesn't even have an article...) We should just put a link to one of the millions of episode guides online on the main pages of each show. StarryEyes 23:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:13, 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 keep. — ceejayoz talk 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kelly[edit]

Article tottaly irrelevant. It is a glory page. Remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.41.34 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This is an article about a high ranking Civil Servant and should be kept. --82.4.86.206 09:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kelly appears to be a notable person. Head of a major public service organization in the U.K., and held high ranking posts in the British government prior to that. Brandon39 10:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Brandon39. TheMadBaron 11:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject is notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly notable, so I think the afd tag should be removed a.s.a.p. --A bit iffy 11:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in at least four ways which would each be sufficient on their own. Bhoeble 21:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club Astro:[edit]

Not notable - a high school astronomy club. Page content is copied verbatim from http://clubastro.org/information.htm. Advertisement
Thanks/Wangi 08:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I wonder how NASA would view their use of the meatball logo on the linked page, which AFAIK is reserved use. --Syrthiss 12:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content is copyvio, subject is not encyclopedic — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 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 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coathanger abortion[edit]

Non-notable band. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Googling ""coathanger abortion" Athens" produces 12 hits. Delete. Joel7687 15:51, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer species[edit]

Full of errors and redundant. The Famous Movie Director 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per TantalumTelluride, if they are equivalent. Keep and cleanup, if they are not the same. -- Kjkolb 11:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with heterotroph, if terms are identical (they seem to be). Otherwise keep, AfD is not cleanup. Kappa 13:38, 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 19:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking Breakfast 2[edit]

Non-notable idiotic program. "Cooking Breakfast 2" gets 258 Google hits, but a large number of those seem to be non-relevant. Delete. Joel7687 07:01, 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 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CoS MuD[edit]

Just another MUD. Does not establish notability. Delete. -Sean Curtin 00:20, 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 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Counterview[edit]

non-notable band Rd232 talk 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also three band members which could probably be speedied: Sam Assi, Brandon Korn, Alex Raiman. Rd232 talk 18:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I've also {{nn-bio}}'ed the band members. — ceejayoz talk 19:21, 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.
  1. delete. FuelWagon 18:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. delete. Volfy 10:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsence - Bwfc 13:16, 1 November 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 KEEP and RENAME to 2005 in Algeria. — JIP | Talk 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in Algeria[edit]

abandoned page that can't be kept current BrainyBroad 05:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it were kept current, then I would support its retention. Given that there is nothing on there more recent than June, I would vote to merge with a page relating to events in Africa during June. If no such page exists, I will vote to delete. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2005 in Algeria Kappa 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five days in July? This obviously doesn't have the necessary support to maintain it. I'm not keen on removing genuine events of importance to a nation of millions, but if we can't merge this we should at least move it to as high a level as possible and list as an article in need of expansion. Kappa's suggestion sounds good to me. Average Earthman 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be a part of the Algeria page. prashanthns
    • Only if it isn't deleted. Kappa 14:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Kappa Brandon39 13:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Keep per Kappa --JAranda | watz sup 23:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted as nonsense and an attack on a historical event. - Mgm|(talk) 23:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas tariff[edit]

  1. Per G1 as patent nonsense, as it is clearly "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make sense of it." The Dallas Tariff was indeed a real historical event in 1816, involving Henry Clay. It was basically a protectionist tariff, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with dead babies.
  2. Per A6 as disparagement, as this article seems to have been created in bad faith to insult a historical event. Someone created a wikilink to the Tariff in the Henry Clay article, which has been the target of a heck of a lot of vandalism recently. Why do I have a feeling that someone failed their history test because of the Dallas Tariff and is lashing out at their teacher?

If not speedy candidate, then just plain delete as ridiculous japery. - Sensor 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No connection with reality. - Pasiphae 21:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy if humanly possible. Gibbering idiocy. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete quickly please. nonsense (chilling). a note: doesn't resemble the other contribs by the same anon ip..Dakota t e 22:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I will always assume good faith on Wikipedia, differing IPs don't mean anything. It could have been a coordinated effort, or dynamic IPs, or whatever. Anyway, I don't really care why this article was made; it needs to be deleted real quick-like. - Sensor 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD category G1 as nonsense. A good article could be written about this topic but this isn't it. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 5 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 Marskell 11:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Quah[edit]

Nn professor but hesitate to CSD. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. 35+ Publications, 10+ book chapters. Notable enough for me.--inksT 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough for me. To many claims for CSD:A7 though, so good call on the AfD ♥♥purplefeltangel. --Isotope23 02:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full professor (which means a lot more than in the U.S) at a very prestigious institution. Honbicot 03:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable academic. -- DS1953 talk 04:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . A professor of Economics at the London School of Economics with some notable papers to his credit. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wouldn't be professor at LSE if he wasn't notable in his field. Uppland 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rd232 talk 15:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.--Alhutch 17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all notable professors. And that means all professors in countries like Britain where the title is reserved for the upper end of the academic ladder. — Haeleth Talk 20:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read the Monetarist paper, I think. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm probably the first one who quoted Quah in the economic inequality article. Someone else created his entry. It was interesting to know who Quah was and his work. Another Wikipedian 03:46, 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 Speedy Delete by ChrisO as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Auxier[edit]

Self-advertisement, vanity page. Already deleted as David E. Auxier, CFPIM,, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Auxier, CFPIM,. --S.K. 17:22, 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 REDIRECTED to defenestration by Proto. Robert T | @ | C 21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defenestrate[edit]

Dictionary defintion; adds nothing to information available in Defenestration 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. As if anyone would care, Finnish (and I suspect, most non-Merkin) universities don't have fraternities or sororities. I was a member of a subject organisation of computer science, though. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta chapter of Alpha Phi Omega[edit]

Non-notable local chapter of national organization. tregoweth 01:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Fellow brothers they are trying to delete our chapter Wiki entries under the belief that they are non-notable. if you wish to also join in on the good fight please come post in the Alpha Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Omega entry. i am trying my best to defend our ideals by defending our chapter wiki's, i am doing this in hopes that it will help defend our organization's ideals and principles and spread our message of friendship, leadership, and service. by no means Tregoweth take this as something hostile, i am a firm believer in talking things out and dealing with things in a calm manner. i am doing this in the hopes to pursuade you in letting our chapter wiki's stay. besides i know just from hitting the random article link that there are better fish to fry out there. thanks for your time.Butterbean04 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. National fraternities are notable; local chapters are not.--Isotope23 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I wholeheartedly support the existence of an article about the national Alpha Phi Omega but not articles about the individual chapters. Student organizations that exist at only a single school (i.e. fraternity chapters) are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 04:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask on what basis are articles about these chapters being deleted ? To which fraternity do the delete voters belong ? Is the nomination (are the nominations) being made from an NPOV ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, don't belong to any fraternity. — ceejayoz talk 19:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. Non-notable fratcruft. Paul 16:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These individual chapters are obviously unique enough to warrant articles separate from Alpha Phi Omega. Unfocused 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. And for the record, I was never a member of any fraternity. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the chapters. StarryEyes 23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, no fratcruft required. Wikipedia is not a free_host or webspace provider, and that's what's here.
  • Keep. Not all chapters have their own entries - only notable ones. Being that Alpha Phi Omega is not a traditional fraternity (in the Animal House image) - it's a service fraternity - many of the chapters that are notable have made a great impact on their campuses and communities. Delta, for instance (referenced here) cared for the university's mascot for 40 years, and erected many significant monuments on Auburn's campus. If a single person had made such an impact, he/she most certainly would warrent an article of their own. Why should it matter if it was an organization? Taking into account the accomplishments of some of the notable chapters, I challenge those of you voting to delete for provide a more concrete reason than simple stating 'fratcruft'. And, for the record, I am a brother of this chapter. Littlerob1221 19:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Isotope23 --redstucco 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First off, I am not a member of this organization. However, seeing it on the VfD list, and having grown up in the state of Alabama, I immediately thought: "interesting, that's the big service organization up at Auburn U. that does a lot of good stuff and maintained the live Eagle mascot many years until Federal Law made it unallowable for any other than a federal organization to maintain live eagles". And the article has those references, so good. Simply because this service organization uses a Greek letter designation, does not make it a "frat". If the group instead called itself the "Auburn Order of the Eagle" or "Auburn Service Organization", these "fratcruft" comments would no longer apply. The issue should be the content, not the Greek letters. The content is reasonable, the organization has a long history. (Which is probably indicated by the chapter being designated "Delta" I would assume...) I'm sure no one would recommend eliminating Order of the Eastern Star or Kiwanis chapter articles if and when written and detailed? --Sturmde 15:42, 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 no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta notre dame[edit]

NN basketball team in Ireland who play in a community center. Might be a youth team. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DemonWare[edit]

Tagged for speedy as an ad, which it isn't anymore. Whether the company is as 'leading' as it claims is for AfD. -Splashtalk 02:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional content added to justify the 'leading' claim including a list of customers and upcoming games featuring DemonWare technology. (preceding unsigned comment by Odonnead (talk · contribs) 2005-10-25 10:55:57 (UTC))

  • Keep. Notability easily verified by Google. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; maybe remove the "leading" in the name of NPOV, till someone can come up with figures showing how they rank compared to whatever their competition is, but they do seem to be significant enough to warrant an article. Odonnead, since you seem to know something about this company, could you perhaps expand the article to explain what their software does, as well as what uses it? That would make it more of an article and less of an advertisement, and give us an even stronger case to keep it. — Haeleth Talk 21:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have removed 'leading' and I have added some information on what DemonWare do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odonnead (talk • contribs) 2005-10-26 12:05:09 (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 DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 21:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DROP DEAD[edit]

Delete, appears to be another non-notable webcomic. "DROP DEAD" + "James Russell-Field" gets 0 hits on Google.--Idont Havaname 00:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Vsion 04:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising with email to order. No relevant Google hits without the author's name either. I'd be happy to reconsider if at the very least evidence of existence is provided. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like self-promotion to me Coyote-37 13:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't even seem to be verifiable, as the link is dead. I'm not sure there are many arguments in favour of having an article on a "web"-comic that's not even available over the web! — Haeleth Talk 20:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam, vanity, nn, etc. StarryEyes 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. Tedzsee 04:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and everybody else. Dragonfiend 06:38, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drualtys[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, flunks WP:WEB. No Alexa rank at all, 31 members in their forum, no google news hits. (193 normal google hits.) —Cryptic (talk) 13:32, 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 18:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubmarine[edit]

Delete this non-notable webcomic with Alexa rank 3,129,848. Article mentions nothing indicating notability, while saying "due to a lack of funds required to finance further printing" suggests extreme non-notability. Dragonfiend 18:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz [kcyicyicyi[User_talk:Ceejayoz|talk]] 19:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. - Hahnchen 19:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The comic is rather notable, and the saying "due to a lack of funds required to finance further printing" refers to the original incarnation of the comic BEFORE it became a webcomic. That comment did not refer to it's current online status, but only in it's original published form. (which was reprinted for the comic's historical reasons) That comment was meant to describe a footnote in the comic's pre-history as a published book that was privatly printed one year before, and was cancelled around December of 2003. Not the webcomic version, which was created the following Janurary and currently continues to receive many hits and pageveiws. In addition to the comic, the author is a well known font creator whose comic is almost that of the same reputation. You clearly misunderstood the "lack of funds" comment to mean something that you assumed. Therefore I vote the comic to stay for the reason of a misunderstanding by Dragonfiend. - TheNewX October 2005
    • I agree that Dragonfiend may have mis-stated that part of the nomination, but the fact remains that we have no evidence of "many hits and page views" or other notability. Can you cite a source with some kind of indication of notability? You might see the proposed guideline WP:COMIC for the sort of things that we might look for. -- SCZenz 02:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is this graph image that i've uploaded, from the website's tracker that lists it on a recently daily average of around 500 hits: http://en.wikipedia.org/66.TheNewX
    • Also, i'd like to note that someone keeps defacing this page, with the first defacing being the removal of my nomination and replacing it with nonsense text and the constant repeating of the number 6 by a user with the IP of 152.163.100.138. (note 2: This is still continuing to happen from this vandal.) TheNewX
      • Yes, I've reverted that vandal myself. I'll warn him/her now. -- SCZenz 03:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to respectfully add that when I created this page, I was unaware of the standards for adding an article of this variety. Having afterwards been informed of them, I can see that this subject does not meet the qualifications and should be removed. I apologize for the error. -- 4.156.144.241 07:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if my AfD was confusing on the note about financing further printing. My intended point was that one could consider a webcomic moving into print as a sign of notability, but a print comic moving to the web due to financial trouble is a likely sign of lack of sales and therefore an indicator of non-notability. (Which of course may have as much or more to do with the economic climate as it does with the quality of comics themselves). Thanks to those that helped clarify my statement, and thanks to User:4.156.144.241 for being gracious and understanding while watching one of your first articles go through the AfD process. Dragonfiend 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with apologies. I take the evidence presented at face value, but I do not think the comic is notable enough yet to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. The relevant policy would be that Wikipedia is not a web directory. I have a bit about webcomics here that tries to explain these issues, in general, from my own perspective: User:SCZenz/Webcomics. Again, for what it's worth, sorry; I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 03:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that I have also placed the author of Dubmarine up for deleteion, Vic Fieger - Hahnchen 00:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E Magazine[edit]

Appears to be non-notable and reads like spam, and the fact that the creator tried adding it to the news-stub template doesn't help its spam status either...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotist[edit]

Neologism cohesion | talk 10:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: do they mean egotist? -- Kjkolb 12:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a play on the words "egotist" and "ecology". Kappa 12:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, few to no relevant google hits so this term doesn't appear to have significant use. Kappa 12:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism chowells 22:47, 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 16:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enthrone Darkness Triumphant[edit]

  • delete, POV, OR. Someone put a cleanup tag on this article but I don't see much to be cleaned up; would need a complete rewrite. If someone wants to do that, then we can discuss whether it's notable, a point on which I currently have no opinion. --Trovatore 18:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No opinion on whether the band is notable, but if it is, start there and later do pages for individual albums if need be. A2Kafir 22:42, 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 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Ben-Uri[edit]

I believe this article is based on facts. --User talk:80.58.6.235 (the user that has been constantly adding nonsense to the Ephraim Ben-Uri article, as well as vandalising this page and my personal page. --Dan East 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have submitted this article as a candidate for deletion because the article does not assert the importance of this individual. --Dan East 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to add the deletion template back, as it was reverted. This article is complete garbage. Take a look at the history. It did refer to an individual that was supposed to be a general, and had various activities up to the current date. Now the article is supposed to refer to someone who was killed at the age of 19, back in 1986, and who was honored by Reagan. I believe the entire article is pure fabrication. I cannot find any information whatsoever about Ephraim Ben-Uri via Google either. --Dan East 03:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion, though the mention near the end that he's a three-star general kept me from immediately tagging it as a speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that. I couldn't find any instructions on the page listing the delete templates. --Dan East 01:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - should every 3-star general get an entry? no. Niz 09:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something tells me this is a hoax. Can't find him on Google anywhere. And look at the edit history. Lots of weird stuff in there. - Sensor 11:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find this person mentioned anywhere else. I think it's just a vanity page/hoax. Tom harrison 13:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - NN and seems to be wife hunting. --MacRusgail 16:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn bio. Current version of article would be speediable as CSD:A7, but previous edits weakly asserted notability. MCB 18:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under A7. Currently about a 19year old cadet who supposedly died in an exercise at West Point. One Google hit for "Ephraim Ben-Uri" see [2] and it relates to kosher places in Spain.WP:V. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unless someone replaces it wih something verifiable. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:37, 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 merge to List of school pranks. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eraser burn[edit]

I really don't think this merits an article, or even a redirect to something else, like self-harm. CDN99 20:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, real phenomenon, how is this not part of the sum of human knowledge? Kappa 20:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indian burn doesn't have its own article. Gazpacho 20:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah Indian burn is covered, why shouldn't eraser burn be? Kappa 20:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll merge/redirect to the school pranks article, if no one objects. --CDN99 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't necesarrily a school prank, I know many kids who do it out of frustration, its like cutting their wrists to them. Lord Of Ketchup 17:48, 25 October 2005
          Then merge to self-harm. Gazpacho 23:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Gazpacho. Denni☯ 00:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep and rename Marskell 12:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every Scout to Save a Soldier[edit]

Tagged for speedy without a reason. Very short, but has about enough context to make it paste me, at least. I couldn't work out where this might be merged to, so perhaps something else needs doing with it. -Splashtalk 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no expansion in the near future. Molotov (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to War savings stamps and keep. Now that is a notable subject: 9500 Google hits. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and expand. Otherwise delete for lack of information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per GeorgeStepanek. Seems to have historical context. 23skidoo 03:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename as per above. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 19:10, 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 vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exolon[edit]

NN computer game. Yes, the C64 was a great machine, but I don't see what's so special about this particular game. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Wayward under CSD A7. Robert T | @ | C 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eytan[edit]

I gave you some pointers for WP:CSD in another AfD you brought up, so I won't repeat it here. :) I've gone ahead and tagged it with {{nn-bio}}. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:13, 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. Robert T | @ | C 22:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Filmutea[edit]

A "movement created by independent artists and professionals, for the independent artists and professionals," created back in 2005. Page has 348 Google hits, mostly Wikipedia mirrors. tregoweth 00:48, 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, but I've been bold and redirected it to list of acronyms and initialisms: F. Robert T | @ | C 22:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

F/k/a[edit]

dicdef BrainyBroad 05:27, 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. Robert T | @ | C 22:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flightless_Bird_Unit[edit]

This seems to be just a school club, which doesn't really belong here. Google can't find any reference to it whatsoever. Bluelemur 09:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks more like a hoax. If not a hoax, it's not notable. chowells 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto - looks more like a hoax, and not notable. Wangi 10:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete think you're right about a hoax, the same user had altered a couple of Fire Brigade Union pages to point to this article. Bluelemur 11:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:12, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fontein I of Germany[edit]

This article is just nonsense, the person does not exist. --Tokle 17:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - that the creator added "He loves the poopenshaft. He can mix it up." after a wikify tag was added suggests a hoax. And further research reveals most of it is copied from Wilhelm II of Germany. Rd232 talk 19:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very easy to write false articles that might seem plausible, there should be better fact-checking here. That someone added a wikify tag on this article proves that point. There is no doubt that this is just pure nonsense and should be deleted. --Tokle 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Choess 04:58, 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. Robert T | @ | C 21:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox productions[edit]

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to be but it looks like some sort of correspondence. CambridgeBayWeather 04:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have no idea what it is either, but whatever it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If I could figure out what it is, I'd suggest that it be moved to Wikibooks. —Brim 04:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like some kind of lame promotion for some piece of software, but even so, it's non-notable. Peyna 04:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not clear on what this is, but somehow I'm sure it needs to be deleted. --rob 11:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-NPOV, and what's this at the end? 'do not copy or change unless you have complete permission to do so, if you wish to use the info written by fox, then all i ask is that you credit my hard work.' - Squibix 13:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic "how to"; appears to be some sort of legal-advice FAQ for file traders. It might belong on some other Wiki, but not here. MCB 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio - it's in Wikipedia, but it claims not to be usable under the terms of the GFDL... so it needs to be deleted quickly before the author's rights are infringed! :D — Haeleth Talk 22:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and file under "what the heck is this anyway?" 23skidoo 03:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps after delete a re-direct to Fox Entertainment Group or something related would be appropriate. When I hear "Fox productions" I think TV and film production. --rob 03:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incomprehensible stuff with bogus GDFL-incompatible legal notice. Doesn't belong here. jni 07:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frederique Constant[edit]

plus redirect at Frederique constant.

Blatant advertising for a Swiss watch company. -- RHaworth 22:18, 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 Speedy Delete by Geogre as recreation of previously deleted content. --GraemeL (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fug (2nd nomination)[edit]

  • delete deleted previously for being a dicdef. Dicdef is back; now an nn forum and a typo have been added. --Trovatore 23:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4. Have tagged it as such. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G4. Saberwyn 23:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, as this is indeed a CSD A7 candidate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furbin[edit]

Non-notable character of a video game / personal page 130.207.114.60 04:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At first I thought this was about an in-game non player character, but this just seems to be someone's own guy in a MMORPG. Maybe this would be speedyable under A7. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:56, 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 KEEP Marskell 12:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla_Island[edit]

Not enough context to be improved. Jwanders 17:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Needed rewriting by someone familiar with the subject or deleting. —Jwanders (Vote changed, 19:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Needs rewriting by someone willing to do even a modicum of research. Trollderella 17:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent about the same amount of time trying to improve this article as you spent listing it for deletion. Please reconsider this listing, and please try to consider working on an article rather than trying to delete it as a first resort. Trollderella 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, thanks for the rewrite Trollderella. Kappa 18:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment still needs context... where did it air, etc... No vote yet because it looks like edits are happening, so I'll refrain for now. Still needs a bit more before I would keep it.--Isotope23 21:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to be bold, Isotope, and add these things! Trollderella 22:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, my edits would not be bold... they would be total BS because I don't know anything about the topic... hence I'm abstaining from editing this.--Isotope23 00:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Carioca 01:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable TV series, therefore eligible for an article. Sounds cool -- I'd rather see Godzilla Island than Desperate Housewives anyday! 23skidoo 03:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears legit, but minor. Link says it aired in a five-minute time slot. Fg2 03:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable. Thelb4 19:30, 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. Don't be fooled by the "keep" votes. User:Slobad is a genuine user, with a specific focus on Magic: The Gathering. User:Vestdan, however, doesn't exist, and the vote was added by an anonymous IP, who has only edited this article and its AfD debate. — JIP | Talk 18:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golgothian Sylex[edit]

A card from Magic: The Gathering that is not much more notable than any of the 7000+ other cards in the game. Apparently has some minor significance in the game's backstory (figuring in the plot of one book from the long series of tie-in novels), but nearly all references online are to the card (mostly stores selling it) and not to the magical item from the storyline (which I can assure you most Magic players care little about). Very crufty fancruft.

  • Delete Andrew Levine 23:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to agree on this one. Delete. Saberwyn 23:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dorkcruft Proto t c 13:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not have 'minor significance', huh? It destroyed the entire continent of Terisiare and started the Ice Age. The article has nothing to do with the card. Keep Slobad 14:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is actually very much significant to the storyline. The card itself, yeah it's not worth its own entry, but as an item within the MTG storyline category, it certainly deserves to be there. The story of the Brothers' War -- ending with the use of the Sylex, is something of the creation myth for the Magic storyline. KeepVestdan 11:20 30 October 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guinn[edit]

NN pizza. Unverifiable. No relevant Google results for "david guinn pizza". --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. I'm also rather certain someone invented that combination of toppings long, long before this one. — ceejayoz talk 19:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, unsourced OR. The pizza sounds good, though. MCB 02:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harwood House[edit]

Residence Hall at Iowa State University related to "traditions" up for AfD listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harwood House traditions. I listed the dorm separately because the criteria for notability and arguments for/against are different than the traditions. Ultimately though, this is a college residence hall, and one that was established in 1995, so it doesn't have the distinction of history on its side. Residence Halls are not in and of themselves notable unless they have some feature that sets them apart from other dorms (i.e. Watterson Towers, the tallest dorm in the world). Harwood House unfortunately does not fit this bill, so Delete (or redirect to Iowa State University).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 articles. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"traditions" of Harwood House[edit]

being: Loser Bowling, Quote Board, Finals Sheets, Kaliedoquiz and House Dinners.

Dorm-cruft. Five "traditions" of an hall of residence at Iowa State University (ISU). (I suppose to an undergraduate something ten years old can be called a tradition.) Probably non-notable in the rest of ISU let alone the world. I am not nominating the parent article Harwood House but remind me what is Wiki policy on halls of residence. -- RHaworth 08:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all nn. The dormitory itself could be put up on AfD, particualrly if it has no claim to architectural or historical significance. However, the resulting vote is likely to be split. Dottore So 10:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I like how they call eating dinner a tradition, though. -- Kjkolb 12:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All and your little dorm too...mwa-ha-ha! Seriously though, non-notable "traditions" and the residence hall itself doesn't appear to be overly notable.--Isotope23 13:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; nn local matter, not of encyclopedic interest. MCB 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator --redstucco 09:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hexopedic cuniculus[edit]

Hoax. No such animal. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, but it's amusing.... 70.27.59.200 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tosh, unless bolstered with multiple references. Sliggy 00:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax, patent nonsense. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know it amazes me, an entire plethora of people jum p to the conclusion that an article should be deleted for the reason that it surpases the knowledge level of the reader. Looking at the prepositions for deletion thus far, the individuals proposing this articles deletion are all software designers or liberal arts specialists. Being a microbiologist in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle), I can attest to the truth of the existence of the Hexopedic cuniculus. At the Oceanic Biologist Conference last year, the hexopedic cuniculus was the main item for discussion. Over the 4 day retreat in Harrison British Columbia, Canada, that we decided it was worth preserving this genetic abnormality. It was decided at the end of the conference to encourage highschools in Canada to preserve this modified rodent.
Yes, this page needs work; however, this is not a hoax. Having observed the hexopedic cuniculus in slide shows and video, i can attest to it being a real animal. I will try and find pictures in my files, until then, I urge you not to delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.109.93 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 October 2005
    • To the anonymous contributor above: I am neither a specialist software designer (although I dabble) nor a liberal arts specialist. I am, however, very interested in seeing the references you claim. Could you provide some more detail please? I would particularly welcome peer-reviewed work from established journal(s). In the mean time I hope you will be able to forgive me, but I continue to be highly sceptical about the existence of these animals. Sliggy 14:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments that it is a hoax:
  1. The WP entry for rabbit doesn't list "cuniculus" as a synonym for rabbit.
  2. Dictionary.com defines "cuniculus" as "The burrow of the itch mite in the skin", or a pacas, which is found in South America (and not a rabbit).
  3. The Gopherus rafinesque is a tortoise, not the "Arctic Goffer [sic]."
  4. There are no Google hits for either "Alfred Vandoogle," "Vandoogle Association of Arctic Mammals", or "West Pacific Sea Pelican".
  5. The anonymous poster's IP address is in Toronto, Ontario, not Seattle. And what would a microbiologist be doing studying rabbits anyway?
Nice try. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would suggest to the anon contributor above that he make an offline backup of the content; if sufficient references come to light to alter our viewpoint, he would be free to restore it then... but ONLY if he can provide sufficient evidence (and I do mean sufficient). Radagast 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Speedy if possible. Bearcat 23:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a specialist software designer, but I do know something about Yukon wildlife. Hoax and patent nonsense. Not even funny enough to meet the low standards of humour in BJAODN. Speedy delete. Luigizanasi 03:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Same reasoning as above. Jonathan Grynspan 15:48, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hobble[edit]

Neologism. Seems made up to me. If real, should be merged with Camping (computer gaming), but I doubt it's real. Google finds nothing. K1Bond007 04:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to revisions by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. K1Bond007 05:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after revisions by User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Description is valid in name and use ( a hobble is a rope used to bind together a horse's two front legs though not used widely any more) but is an item which hardly needs it's own article.--Dakota 21:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand; in its edited form it's a valid article, and already more than a dicdef. — Haeleth Talk 22:14, 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. Regarding the references to "different planes of existence" in the article, I suspect that the author of that was thinking about ghosts and different planes, in particular the Ethereal Plane in the Dungeons and Dragons universe. Nonetheless, the consensus here is unanimous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporeal[edit]

Dicdef. Long dicdef, but dicdef nonetheless. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 20:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Definition includes nonsensical content such as "Something that is incorporeal is intangible, believed to exist on a different plane of existence, a zero-dimensional being. In this sense, however, it shouldn't be confused with the term extra-dimensional, as that is something that can exist outside the boundaries of three dimensions, yet still exist within them." 70.27.59.200 20:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 03:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per annon user --JAranda | watz sup 23:45, 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. When the only keep votes are from User:Trollderella, an otherwise fine user who votes keep on nearly everything, and an obvious sock puppet, I feel confident to delete this article. — JIP | Talk 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intense frisbee[edit]

non-notable neo-sport. Delete. It looks like "intense frisbee" is sort of a neologism, or a game that this user created out of thin air. No google hits for the sport as a discrete sport. Some google hits randomly for "intense frisbee", typically describing people vigorously playing frisbee. —Gaff ταλκ 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also Intense Disc. Comment please be nice to the user who posted both Intense frisbee and Intense Disc. He or she is clearly a newbie. Clearly enthusiatic about this new sport. It may not be up to WP snuff for an article, but the user is acting in good faith. I suggested that they consider a homepage or blog to publicize the new sport. thanks.—Gaff ταλκ 03:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see my other comment below as well. This may be an inclusionists best dream. A group of kids (or maybe just one kid) decide to put an interesting twist on an already established game...Ultimate Frisbee. They change some rules around and rename it Intense frisbee or Intense Disc and create an article on it. The contributor admits to me when I ask him how wide spread the game is that it is not wide spread at all, not a league sport, not in existence completely as of yet (implying that he is still working out the finer points of the rules). But users here still argue that it should be kept! Or they at the most change their vote from keep to abstain. —Gaff ταλκ 01:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to tell how exactly how notable it is. My feeling is that some of the Google hits do reference more than just intensly played frisbee. Given the quality of the article, I'd prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt and vote keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Changed to abstain based on author's comments. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • can you give any links? I can't find any references that sound like what the articles describe. DDerby-(talk) 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. At worst, a redirect to frisbee will cause no harm. Trollderella 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain this argument further?—Gaff ταλκ 05:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, not-notable local variation on a game, no indication of widespread use. From the article: "ending after a series of 3 thirty five minute quarters." What, not after five halves? Barno 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into ultimate frisbee. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm all for seeing WP flourish and do not consider myself a deletionist. But in this case, even the contributor recognizes that it is not that notable a sport. Here are comments he or she left on my talk page:—Gaff ταλκ 20:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. The sport isn't getting into the newspaper or anything, so I guess I should just let it be delted. And don't worry, you're not breaking my spirit, I just proabably need set up a homepage or something. Maybe just set up some basic rules so me and my friends can play a little bit more of a strict game or something. I play ultimate frisbee now, and I really enjoy it, somaybe it'll be a link page to that one day or something like that. Thanks for the help.

I actually don't see anything wrong with what he is saying. I myself play a sport similar to this in my town, except there are different names. I think he's done good explaining, and perhaps if more people come here it actually will turn into a real game. Give it time, I say keep. -Rick

  • Keep I think that the kid is a newb, but the article does have some benifits to it. There is some evidence on Google that it is more than intense frisbee with a bunch of jocks running around. I say that we keep the article, or merge it with ultimate frisbee. The sport looks interesting enough. I say let's let the kid have this one articlee, but if he tries to make another dud liek this, I'm not having his back. *wink* -Smart Association 19:36, 25 October 2005
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote and striking all my comments above. Keep. If people want to make up new rules to games and change the name and then write encyclopedia articles on them, then I vote keep. There are worse things that people could be doing with WP.—Gaff ταλκ 01:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, since this is an attempt to propogate someone's new game, not describe a game people are actually playing in significant numbers. Good luck to the creator of the game, though; hopefully it will someday be popular enough to merit mention. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incidentally, I fixed the formatting that was broken by Gaff striking all of his previous comments, and his last struck comment, as its statement of fact is worth mentioning, even if he's changed his mind. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments are formatted how I want them. Please do not change.—Gaff ταλκ 03:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an avid ultimate player, this is ultimate frisbee, only with some modifications and some new terms for standard disc throws (though most of the terms are also originally Ultimate terms. My college pickup games used a few modifications; it's not hard to modify the game. I don't find any relevant google hits. NN, OR. -DDerby-(talk) 18:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Regional variation of a more established game and as the author himself has apparently admitted he agrees this is not a notable variation, I must vote delete. As a side note, there are lots of free webhosting solutions out there if the author wants to publicize his version and I wish him luck.--Isotope23 18:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but gently. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 23:47, 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, and may the Net have mercy on our souls. DS 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internetism (religion)[edit]

hoax, or at least not anything that really exists. The quotes given in support are using the Internet as a metaphore for God, not the basis for any real religion. Peyna 04:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article completely fails to establish this as a notable religion. As per the nominator, the quotes are completely taken out of context, anyway. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe should change the title from "Internetism (religion)" to Internetism (general belief)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.75.108 (talk • contribs) Note: created the article under discussion
    • That might be a step in the right direction, but it will still be incumbent upon you to establish that some significant number of people actually hold this as a general belief. I think it's a great idea (Serial Experiments Lain fan here :-), but I think it is still pretty much in the realm of science fiction. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as non-verified. --Vsion 05:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights guarantees absolute freedom for exercising one's religious beliefs (this includes online postings). The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Paragraph 1, Article 18, Part III says "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching". Thus this article should be recognized as a religious exercise by either an individual or community and thus should be allowed to function and left to be, according to the 1st Amendment of the US Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.75.108 (talk • contribs)
    • Good day! While we respect your considerably well-bolded and logically sourced right to practice any religion that strikes your fancy, it should be noted that said right doesn't extend to other people's/group's/etcetera's websites. Additionally, as has been noted, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Nor is it a country, a planet, a galaxy, or a universe - it is an encyclopedia (link provided for clarification), and thus an innapropriate place to practice religion. Now, if your belief system was notable, which we invite you to prove, we'd be more than happy to mention it. Until then, I invite you to surf around and become familiar with wikipedia, what warrants inclusion, and community norms and standards. Have a wikiwiki day! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your well wishes. on your argument that Wikipedia is not a place to practice religion, well, that depends on what the definition of practice is. We started this article so that we may share our ideas with the world, wikipedia's the easiest ways since most of the world's media is biased to some degree. Since wikipedia's mission is to share knowledge with a neutral point of view then we have the right to share our beliefs with the world as much as anyone do. Adding to that, Internetism adheres to the sharing of knowledge which is a way we practice our religion; and since wikipedia's and our interests do not conflict, we shouldn't have any problems then, with the support of the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.
        • Wikipedia's mission is to also present articles about notable subjects. This has nothing to do with the first amendment - you want people to know about Internetism or whatever, put up your own website. You have failed to prove notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. The above argument is a bit ott. Dottore So 10:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically for 60.48.75.108's argument, there is no evidence (presented by the article or otherwise) that people are actually exercising their freedom of religion in this way. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 11:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In response to the previous argument, the creator of the article in question, 60.48.75.108 (hereinafter refered to as "Bundein"), is a devout practitioner of the religious belief under presecution. Hence by the 1st Amendment and UN Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter refered to as "the Law") it is a valid religious belief. Bundein 11:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In respose to the previous arguments' referal to Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the article in question is not a form of propaganda, self advocation nor advertising but instead an expresion of the creator's (Bundein's) religious beliefs.
  • Delete as unverified. -Javeryt 11:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, and Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-notable, unverified, with a generous handful of original research thrown in for good measure. Delete -- The Anome 17:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the commentors seem to ignore that Internetism has a different view from other "normal" religious/philosophical ideas, and hence bias on their views.
  • Delete. And if the First Amendment arguments are put forward seriously -- I can't tell if they're kidding -- it's worth rereading the text. Even just rereading the first word of the First Amendment would answer this claim. Bikeable 18:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Comment: The article is cruft, but beside that i'd like to warn the advocates of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Please do not break policies on that page again, you've been warned. Karmafist 18:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment: The First Amendment applies only to the federal government, not private entities such as the Wikimedia Foundation. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - though some of the arguments for keeping it might qualify as BJAODN. ;) — Haeleth Talk 22:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Joe DeCock.
  • Keep. We are not threating wikipedia with legal action. We are not sueing anyone. We are only exercising our rights which has been written in law. The First Amendment and UN Declaration on Human Rights encompasses the whole US sovereign soil and and those countries who are members of the UN.
    • Yes, BJAODN this AfD per Haelth. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were correct, then the Boy Scouts of America wouldn't be allowed exclude gays. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • They Boyscouts of America holds the same Don't ask, don't tell policy as the US Armed Forces, "...prohibition of known or avowed homosexuals as leaders (both youths and adults), youths who refuse to affirm a "duty to God",". Thus your argument is baseless.
    • The First Amendment only applies to the Federal government. "Congress shall make no law..." Similar restrictions apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. As for the UN declaration, it is only "binding" on those governments that are members of the UN, not the citizens of those governments. Even then, it's not binding in that there is no legal recourse for failure to comply (although there certainly can be disastrous political and international relations fallout). Peyna 16:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The citizens are binded to the Law (refer above), indirectly through acts of Congress and the Executive (whom are responsible to uphold the Constitution). This includes for the United States and the legislative and executive branch of all nations that are signitories of the UN Charter.
        • Not wishing to prolong this obvious troll of a discussion any further, I suggest you actually spend some time learning how International Law and the United States Constitution work before suggesting that I (a private citizen) can violate your right to freedom of speech. Peyna 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this foolish attempt to mirror the fabled global success of Jagism. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:29, 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 speedy deleted. -R. fiend 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce My-Self[edit]

This is vanity which hte first person writing makes clear but he does assert his importance which makes it not CSD-able. However, I think it looks plain that he is not notable enough by wikipedia criterion. gren グレン 06:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linkspam. Delete with prejudice. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, looks like a misplaced user page. Gazpacho 07:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. Only userfy if user decides to contribute more than just that page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy KillerChihuahua 11:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had Xponse (talk · contribs) made any other contributions to Wikipedia at all, I would have agreed with userfication. But the mere act of creating an account does not by itself afford one the privilege of having a user page. Wikipedia is not a free user page hosting service. One has to contribute to the project. This user has made no other contributions to the project at all. Delete. Uncle G 12:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had a nickel for every partially-userfied page I removed the afd tag from for an account with no other contributions.... (Oh, yeah, speedy delete. No assertion of notability, and more damaging, he admits to search engine optimization right there in the article.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe his asertion of importance actually asserts anything important - apparently he designed a website. Whoah. This is a Speedy candidate, IMHO. But when in doubt, AfD, so Delete quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 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 12:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Baxter Jr.[edit]

I wrote this page and would like it to be deleted. 24.21.41.119 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but cleanup, looks like it could be worth something. Also check up on "used with permission" - if this is false, delete. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numerous editors have worked on the article, unlike nominator 24.21.41.119 who has vandalised it. --JJay 01:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, no grounds for deletion mentioned. If it's a copyvio it needs proof, otherwise the author released the copyright when it was submitted Ziggurat 02:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as he appears notable enough. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator's claim that he created the article is disputed; this apparent honour lies with Aqn238. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, minor nn religious figure. His books are self-published (by his own organization), he gets 668 Google hits as quoted name "irvin baxter". MCB 20:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I worked on (partial) cleanup and I want to mention my reasoning. Millenarianism is a topic of serious academic study. Having information about Baxter's books and radio programmes here is going to be useful to people in 50 or 100 years who want to study the forms millenarianism took in our time and need to run down primary sources. The entry needs to be shorter and more factual, and it may reasonably be merged into an article on something more general. I don't think it's 100% cruft, though. TECannon 14:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. BrainyBroad 06:03, 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. I won't protest if anybody places a redirect here, but how useful would it really be to have one when the hyphen follows a space? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J -Curve[edit]

This is original research. See N-Curve (AfD discussion) and Pinowski Curve (AfD discussion). Uncle G 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:No original research. --Vsion 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just like the other two. — Haeleth Talk 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. -- Malo 00:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is worthy of deletion under WP:NOR. However, it should be a redirect to our article on the J curve , I recall Paul Keating then Australian Treasurer, talking about the J-curve in the 1980's in relation to the Australian trade deficit. A Google J Curve search for "J curve" trade comes up with 38,000 results so that is probably the topic people would be looking for see [3]. BTW our J curve article is in pretty poor shape. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Capitalistroadster. MCB 02:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The exponential curve is not a new discovery. Plus you can't have unbounded exponential growth within a bounded range - even if you could quantify degrees of success in a relationship, you'd probably get an S-curve. Peter Grey 07:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable OR. Also, named wrong (note extra space after "J") --A D Monroe III 01:28, 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 speedy deleted. (21:06, 26 October 2005 DragonflySixtyseven deleted "Jesse Richard" (attack page)) - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Richard[edit]

Non-notable, vanity, and marginal attack page. There is no explicit claim to notability but I think an A7 may not be warranted as following the external link uncovers the fact that he is "Director of Programming & Infrastructure" at a non-notable company.

  • Delete, to be explicit. Sliggy 19:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7. The article itself doesn't claim notability, so it qualifies. We can't be expected to dig through external links to look for claims of notability. Tempshill 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I should say I'd be perfectly happy if a speedy is applied, but wasn't sure and therefore brought it here. Sliggy 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Brim 23:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'd have gone for the A7. I don't think "Director of Programming & Infrastructure" is an assertion of notability.
  • Delete Doesn't look true. Hohohob 07:04, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jetwank[edit]

Non-notable band. Bjelleklang - talk 23:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - We are getting there, and not doing any harm in the mean time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.1.194 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 October 2005

    • Unfortunately, under the wikipedia guidelines, the article shoudn't be there until you meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Delete. Saberwyn 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Extraordinary Machine 23:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I find it amusing that they talked up the band's website but didn't even leave the URL unlike all these other nn bands. StarryEyes 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. chowells
  • Delete antilived T | C 08:25, 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 19:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Blister and Sweetie[edit]

I think this is a valid entry which will be added to over time. The subject, a comic book, is soon to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblister (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete unless some verification is provided that this really will happen that's independent of the author (whose page I strongly suspect someone will soon nominate also). —Cryptic (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notible comic with no evidence it will ever be released.--Isotope23 16:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:26, 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. MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Tipton[edit]

Found while cleaning out CSDs. No vote. Titoxd(?!?) 03:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 3 google hits and none made any direct mention of Kay Tipton. A vanity perhaps.--Dakota
  • Keep Kay Tipton is an outstanding mathematics educator who single-handedly over 30 years developed the greatest high school math program in the United States. Her importance cannot be overlooked and it is imperitive that she be honored with her own article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.73.199 (talk • contribs)
Can you back that claim up with sources? Also, what makes you say that program is the greatest? - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person is non-notable.  Denelson83  04:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. I thought that Denelson83 had already deleted this. CambridgeBayWeather 06:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Tipton is well known within the local community and within the national Mu Alpha Theta community. The Vestavia Hills High School math teams do excel (See the school article). The claim of "greatest high school math program in the US" is an overstatement. All in all, I'd say that the article does establish some notability, barely at the threshold set by precedent at WP:BIO, but that you could make a stronger case for leaving this information in the VHHS article. Dystopos 15:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. A verifiable, factual and neutral article can be written. She has, in fact, been honored by the Mathematics Association of America, and the Alabama State Legislature, among others. Google is not everything. Trollderella 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: How much more notable a high school calculus teacher can you find? She has tons of rather prominent awards and 35 yrs of dedicated work at her school. Not going to argue that all high school teachers need an article. But one who rises above and sets a standard (as this teacher verifiably has done) probably deserves an article here.—Gaff ταλκ 20:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept. Of course Kay Tipton is a notable person. She is an outstanding mathematics educator, as shown by her many awards and recognitions. Her inspiration has rekindled an interest in mathematics at VHHS, formerly one of the most hated subjects in school. She is a legend both in the high school math community of the American Southeast and in the Mu Alpha Theta national honor society. Under her guidance, the VHHS math team has been national champions about fifteen times out of twenty at the Mu Alpha Theta National Convention. It is absurd to think that just because someone is not on Google numerous times, then he or she is not notable; Google is not always correct about academia. Wan726
"The team has earned 15 first-place and 2 second-place finishes in their 17 National Mu Alpha Theta Convention competitions." Epi14159
  • Keep. She's definitely contributing much to this country. She sets the standard for what people should call as "mathematics," almost forgotten at this modern age of stupidity. She definitely is a notable person, and the claim that google comes important to setting the standard of who-is-important is absurd. We ought to look more into significance rather than popularity.Yanisu7 preceding comment made by User:70.251.7.127 and not User:Yanisu7. CambridgeBayWeather 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on research, she's definitely noteworthy to be on Wikipedia. Vestavia Math team was deemed in the Seattle Times to be the US top public school math team. Her students are the only students to represent Alabama in the AIME to USAMO qualifications. Google isn't everything. Also, the article is basically neutral and indifferent. No need to take it off.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.8.225 (talk • contribs) only edit to Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather 00:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable person. Carioca 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the POV language in the article really should go. -- SCZenz 03:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For anyone who has ever hit random article at Wikipedia and seen something completely useless and non-deserving an article, you can identify with this. Don't you all want legit articles to be on Wikipedia? This is a notable, distinguished person, certainly deserving of an article. Space certainly isn't at a premium here, I see absolutely no reason to remove this article. User:DianeTeer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ☎ ) 02:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kites (musician)[edit]

Non-notable musician/band CambridgeBayWeather 04:26, 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 real consensus, but since this article is just a duplicate of Know Your Enemy, I have deleted it anyway. As Wahoofive stated, WP:ALBUM says not to reflexively disambiguate, so I think the article about the album should just stay at Know Your Enemy. Rich Farmbrough seems to have solved the disambiguation problem anyway by creating Know Your Enemy (disambiguation). Robert T | @ | C 03:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Know Your Enemy (album)[edit]

An almost duplicate of Know Your Enemy, so it should be deleted. You should also know the history of the article "Know Your Enemy". [4] Someone first tried to add there text about a non-notable punk-band, which has released only three demos. [5] Then someone kicked the Manic Streets Preachers album out of the page, and changed an article to be primarily about that punk band, and only to mention word's other meanings. [6] The duplicate article "Know Your Enemy (album)" was created. I am also waiting comments about the punk band's notability that some visitors would finally understand that the band hasn't achieved enough to be in Wikipedia. Hapsiainen 10:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. IMO, Know Your Enemy should redirect to Know Your Enemy (album) as that is the preferred format for an album name. Lock the Know Your Enemy redirect if there is potential for consistant reverts to an article about a non-notable band.. This way Know Your Enemy would always be available as a disambiguous if the band became notable, or a book/movie came out with this name.--Isotope23 13:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Au contraire! WP:ALBUM specifically says "Do not reflexively disambiguate" (i.e. don't append (album) when unnecessary). This is also in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. No vote, pending decision on the punk band. (Procedurally, it would have been better to nominate the punk band for deletion rather than this, but too late now.) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected...--Isotope23 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The punk band article and the album article edit history are in the same page. If you delete the former, you'll delete the latter, too. I simply reverted the "Know Your Enemy" article to a version without the punk band. You don't have to wait for a decision on it. I have never noticed that they would vote on AfD about a partial deletion of an edit history although such action is technically possible. The cut and paste copy of the album article is not needed, so it is easiler to simply delete it. -Hapsiainen 16:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now someone reverted the article to the punk band version. The visitor presented these reasons: "This group meets criteria to be found notable, having gone on a national concert tour in a large country, as well as consisting of members which have done the same." Well, they have a website in Myspace, and it shows only gigs in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. This can't be a national concert tour. Some band members were part of other bands, but none of those bands is extremely notable. -Hapsiainen 21:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Know Your Enemy if there are any differences, otherwise delete. 00:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in favour of Know Your Enemy. Delete mention of the nn punk band all together. the wub "?!" 00:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Know Your Enemy (album) Should not be deleted. Know Your Enemy (album) is the preferred format for an album name. Know Your Enemy should be reverted to an article of the punk band version. This group meets criteria to be found notable, having gone on a national concert tour in the US, as well as consisting of members which have been accepted as notable. For example, members are former Gotham Road, Michale Graves ( Misfits ). These groups are already heavily covered in Wikipedia for touring as well as major label releases. This is more then enough for Know Your Enemy (the band) to have precidense over an album in acordance with Wikipedia. see WP:MUSIC.--149.151.193.173 17:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prove us that they have gone a national concert tour. I have seen no traces of such. See my comment above. You misunderstand the WikiProject Music Guideline. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable." Some members were part of Gotham Road, but it isn't an extremely notable band. Michale Graves

isn't a member of your band. So you can't keep the article because of it. -Hapsiainen 20:55, 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 redirect to Stormtrooper effect. This law is already discussed there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Diminishing Ninjas[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Legions of reigning darkness"[edit]

NN forum established 4 months ago. Has about 100 members. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable gaming clan. You can call me Al 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very temporary, gaming clan.--Ramon omar 00:25, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Les fils de William[edit]

Not English, but as stated on WP:PNT#Les_fils_de_William an NN band. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 03:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band vanity. Aecis 13:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Physchim62 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Build a Toolchain[edit]

Cookery-book instructions for some software project. Probably a copyvio. -- RHaworth 08:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 17:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with User RHaworth.--Dakota 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT instruction manual. — Haeleth Talk 22:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NN, D. ComCat 00:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks, if not a copyvio. Bearing in mind that I know nothing about software design, it looks like it might be useful to someone. -Colin Kimbrell 20:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Steamer[edit]

I came across this page while browsing through "Random Article." It seems to lack value even in the world of porn or pop culture. I googled the term and came up with nothing other than a type of steamship. That's not what this is referring to. I'd like to delete it on those grounds. 71.195.206.168 12:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. non-encyclopedic. --Syrthiss 12:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Kappa 12:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- DS1953 talk 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stupid and unverifiable. Just another one of those supposed bizarre sexual practices like the Angry dragon, which is also up for deletion. Devotchka 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact, I'm creating a whole new level of Wiki-Hell for sex-position nonsense.  BD2412 talk 23:38, 26 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities without visibility of total solar eclipses for more than one thousand years[edit]

A meaningless list. minghong 09:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 19:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of machine guns[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 ☎ ) 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wake Island railroads[edit]

Blank article other than headers since it's inception on May 12th, 2005. Delete for lack of content and no apparent attempt to add any.--Isotope23 20:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for technical reasons until a better nav box is created. Like it says in the edit history when I created it: "stubbing out red link in nav box to keep it off the Most Wanted list". All of the List of STATE railroads articles in the nav box use the same nav box, {{US links}}, which links to List of XXX YYY where XXX is one of the regions listed in the box and YYY is a parameter to the template (in this case, "railroads"). slambo 20:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Since nobody else created an alternative without the disputed links, I spent the time today to create {{US railroad lists}}. I will update the appropriate pages to use this new template. Since my keep reason was purely technical, I now have no opinion on this vote. 64.213.162.196 13:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My browser cookie expired before I hit save. Above comment from 64.213.162.196 was made by me. slambo 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That being the case I will group nominate the rest of the blank railroad articles in one AfD when I get a chance later today. If these pages do get deleted, would 5 or so days of AfD be sufficient time for you to update the other 51 pages with the new template? By the way, thanks for making the new template slambo...--Isotope23 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a little short of halfway through updating appropriate pages. Puerto Rico is the only insular area left in the abbreviated nav box. DC naturally has many, as do all of the states. slambo 14:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll wait another day or so to AfD and obviously based on what you've said above I will leave Puerto Rico out of the insular areas I nom for AfD as blank because that article has content.--Isotope23 17:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and fix the nav box. What a ridiculous idea. Wake Island has a runway, a few houses and a lot of seabirds and nothing else. In fact, delete List of Midway Atoll railroads, List of Johnston Atoll railroads, List of Palmyra Atoll railroads, List of Jarvis Island railroads List of Howland Island railroads etc etc etc as well. Why would someone create all these articles for 1 mile long spits of rock, sand and coral rather than just fix a patently awful nav box? Sabine's Sunbird 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Wake Island actually has railroads on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 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 . - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Localhero[edit]

Advert for a non notable company -- does not meet WP:CORP. chowells 10:32, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy English[edit]

Hoax/joke. There is an author by the name of Lucy English, but this is not her. I was unable to find any book titled "Going Nower fast", or assuming a misspelling, "Going Nowhere Fast" by this author. Nor was I able to find any such award as the Apple Prize for literature (although there's a Golden Apple Prize for children's literature). --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... no votes recorded first time around.. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Looks like a hoax. "organist and composer Malcolm Archer" does appear to exist (he is the organist of St Paul's Cathedral in London). However everything else seems unverifiable, and unlikely (e.g. no google hits on publications for a UK professor?). Prof. of what, and where? frankh 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. If her characters are "much beloved", then searching their names plus hers in Google should yield some results. It doesn't. BrianSmithson 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:56, 3 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 . - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi's Game[edit]

DeleteThis is a fangame, it's not an official game, (Read discussion for more stuff whatever...--FlareNUKE 22:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete . - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magicball Network[edit]

Non-notable forum. Alexa has no rank and two incoming links, Google can't find any incoming links. Forum stats say 240 active users. — ceejayoz talk 00:33, 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 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malevolent Alien Abduction Research[edit]

Article was previously nominated for deletion (discussion here), but {{AfD}} was not added to the article, so the AfD was out of process. Re-listing, no vote. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of this article being deleted, why not MERGE the article ? The intention of this article is to help people who has had a really nasty UFO/Alien encounter report it without the often obscenity laced ridicule,abuse,disrespect. It is also intended to provide people looking for information concearning horrific encounters to use in movies,TV shows, radio shows,books and novels, even for use in Wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Clic[edit]

Decidedly NN hip-hop group - Soundly fails WP:MUSIC. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name brings up all of nine Google hits, only two of which (three if we count this very AFD page) actually pertain to hip-hop at all. At the same time, the state of Canadian hip hop is such that I'll have to vote keep if they can show that they'd had airplay on Flow 93.5. Tentative delete, with the proviso that this is a changeable vote if more evidence is presented. Bearcat 23:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless there is some big important fact missing from the article (I wouldn't be surprised) getcrunk juice 13:47, 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 KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 21:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pizza[edit]

Tagged for speedy: "This complete, specific, or noteworthy enough to be worthy of inclusion. It's not even linked from anything", which isn't on the list, I don't think. But it does sound like an AfD nomination. -Splashtalk 03:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unencyclopaedic nonsense. So what if Taco Bell had 'Mexican' pizza? Here in Mexico we stick to Dominos & Pizza Hut. Eddie.willers 03:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Steak sauce should stay, this should too.Molotov (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a distinctive existing dish. --Vizcarra 03:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, as we have Hawaiian pizza, Greek pizza and California-style pizza. Carioca 03:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it makes no difference what pizza joints Mexicans eat at. I am sure Taco Bell isn't exactly in the top ten of restaurants in Mexico.--Nicodemus75 04:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mmmm.... Marskell 09:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exsisting topping, although I wonder about the validity of Taco Bell introducing it. Perhaps merge with some list on types of pizza if it can't be expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Hawaiian and Chicago-style both merit entries. Jtmichcock 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — ceejayoz talk 19:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Dragonfiend 19:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not Mexican, not pizza, just a brand name. Peter Grey 06:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite. The article needs to be more about the pizza itself than about the history of Taco Bell and their advertising campaign. --Iustinus 07:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 21:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Neill[edit]

Unverifiable. Google search for "Michael O'Neill" Irish writer Dublin Paris finds no relevant results. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — probably a hoax since it doesn't even list his "most important work". — RJH 19:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 19:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the same article has been proposed for deletion on it.wiki (see here) Shaka 11:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SγωΩηΣ tαlk 12:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax --Andrea.gf 16:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Zann's Music[edit]

non-notable; vanity Tom harrison 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - see also Josh Cabral and Paul Minagotto. Tom harrison 01:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero google hits for "Mr. Zann's Music." Can this be speedy? Also, submitter posting articles on the actors in the film and has vandalised Reservoir Dogs page. See user contributor page and speedy vanity articles on his buddies as well.—Gaff ταλκ 01:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Vanity page, but this makes me laugh: "many of the themes and aesthetics that are soon to become Cabral's hallmarks -- violent crime; pop culture references; memorable dialogue; and complex, nonlinear stories." Right. Write about them when they ARE hallmarks. Devotchka 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, come back after it's released, and then we'll see... Bjelleklang - talk 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 DELETE. Because there are so many delete votes, and I personally don't view individual chapters of strange Merkin fraternities as notable, I have chosen to ignore the votes by User:Kappa and User:Trollderella, who I know to vote keep on pretty much everything. I am left with 8 delete votes and 2 keep votes, which is a pretty clear consensus for deletion. — JIP | Talk 19:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Alpha chapter of Alpha Phi Omega[edit]

Non-notable local chapter of national organization. tregoweth 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. National fraternities are notable; local chapters are not.--Isotope23 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fellow brothers they are trying to delete our chapter Wiki entries under the belief that they are non-notable. if you wish to also join in on the good fight please come post in the Alpha Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Alpha Phi Omega entry. i am trying my best to defend our ideals by defending our chapter wiki's, i am doing this in hopes that it will help defend our organization's ideals and principles and spread our message of friendship, leadership, and service. by no means Tregoweth take this as something hostile, i am a firm believer in talking things out and dealing with things in a calm manner. i am doing this in the hopes to pursuade you in letting our chapter wiki's stay. besides i know just from hitting the random article link that there are better fish to fry out there. thanks for your time.Butterbean04 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not attempt to rally support from your fraternity. Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus, not a simple majority, and such attempts at sockpuppet or meatpuppet voting are discounted by the closing administrator. I do appreciate your keeping the discussion civil, however; so thank you. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I wholeheartedly support the existence of an article about the national Alpha Phi Omega but not articles about the individual chapters. Student organizations that exist at only a single school (i.e. fraternity chapters) are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 04:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Three famous alumnus have been noted in the respective Alpha Phi Omega section. --Animosity 12:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask on what basis are articles about these chapters being deleted ? To which fraternity do the delete voters belong ? Is the nomination (are the nominations) being made from an NPOV ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I AfD'd the articles about these chapters because I stumbled across them, and feel that, unless they are somehow notable outside of their organization, local chapters of any group are not in and of themselves notable enough for their own articles. tregoweth 15:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire. Individual chapters of organizations are inherently non-notable.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete with prejudice. Non-notable fratcruft. Paul 16:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These individual chapters are obviously unique enough to warrant articles separate from Alpha Phi Omega. Unfocused 17:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it says "Perhaps the most famous alumnus of the Mu Alpha Chapter is former president Bill Clinton." Kappa 18:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Clinton's membership can be part of the Alpha Phi Omega article and his own. — ceejayoz talk 19:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Isotope23. And for the record, I was never a member of any fraternity. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the chapters. StarryEyes 23:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, no fratcruft required. Wikipedia is not a free_host or webspace provider, and that's what's here.
  • Delete per Isotope23 --redstucco 09:52, 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 KEEP Marskell 12:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murder ballad[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete imaginary music genre. Defining a genre of songs by topic is impossible. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete genrecruft.Keep, I'm convinced. Good work.--Isotope23 16:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a term that is well known to folklorists. A search for "Murder Ballad" turns up 28,000+ hits on Google. However, it is not a sub-genre of heavy metal (or more properly, it is not limited to heavy metal). I have replaced the what was there with a cut-and-paste of the discussion of Murder Ballads from the article Ballad. However this could be expanded much farther. Dsmdgold 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, non-imaginary. Kappa 18:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google Scholar reveals over 30 published research papers in academic journals that use the term 'murder ballad'. Certainly appears to be more folklore related than heavy metal. Average Earthman 19:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a quick bit of expanding, as I bumped into a couple of interesting looking references to the same song. And added a link to Nick Cave's 1996 album, of course. Average Earthman
  • Keep and expand and thanks to Dsmdgold and Average Earthman for their efforts. A notable form of ballad. Well known examples include "Tom Dooley", "Stagger Lea" and "Folsom Prison Blues". Nick Cave had an album called the Murder Ballads which contained his biggest hit, a duet with Kylie Minogue "Where the Wild Roses Grow" which went top 5 in the UK and Australia. The late great Johnny Cash was known to have sung a murder ballad or two in his time too - see this link for more [7]. Capitalistroadster 20:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like to see some citations for this. Most of the Google results I've looked at are fancruft sites or WP mirrors. I will, however, continue to watch this page for developments. It's already more plausible than it was at the time of nomination. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; this is a common, long-lived genre of folk music. Andrew Levine 22:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known genre. --MCB 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Cap and Andrew L. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Smerdis of Tlön 15:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and interesting. -Colin Kimbrell 20:39, 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 merge. Will merge and redirect per gfdl guidelines. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzlehatch[edit]

Merge with article mentioned - too small in my opinion, even for a stub. Molotov (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then go ahead and do it. If someone wants to expand it, they can do so later. Just leave a redirect after you've finished the merge. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. As usual, no deletion required, merging can take place without listing for deletion. Trollderella 17:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be bold and merge it! --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing worth merging that isn't already in the other article. Jacqui ★ 07:56, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N-Curve[edit]

No basis or scientific grounding; possible vanity page?

  • Delete per nomination. - LichYoshi 11:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This N-Curve is in relation to the Pinowski Curve and J-Curve, and was based on the same research. It has only recently been theorized, and thus may not be widely recognized yet. It is part of an obscure branch of research, but should remain here for future reference. Do not delete, please. -Dr. Nicholas Langer, discoverer of the N-Curve (actually 141.154.137.115 2005-10-24 13:51:46 UTC according to edit history. Uncle G 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete. Putting it in its best light, it's still unverifiable original research. —Cryptic (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nomination. It is unfair of you to remove this entry solely because my research is not yet widespread in the media or in the science world, and is thus "unverifiable." My results were based on independent research along with my two colleagues Dr. John F. Duval and Dr. Andrew Pinowski. We only recently published our theories in small, independent science newsletters, but will soon release our findings to the public in a more widespread form. I have listed my findings here first only as a step towards getting my research out into the public. I insist that you keep this, as well as the Pinowski and J-Curves. -Dr. Nicholas Langer, discoverer of the N-Curve - DrLanger89 13:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC) (actually 141.154.137.115 2005-10-25 15:27:09 UTC according to edit history. Uncle G 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, we have a specific policy for this: Wikipedia:No original research. Kappa 18:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author, 141.154.137.115 (talk · contribs), has told us outright above that this is original research. See also J -Curve (AfD discussion) and Pinowski Curve (AfD discussion). Delete. Uncle G 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It's not even original research, just uncreative writing. — RJH 19:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this utter tosh. Even if it wasn't tosh it'd count as original research. Real science gets published in peer reviewed journals. Average Earthman 19:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination 70.27.59.200 19:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably hoax; precisely 0 Google hits for any combination of the three names the author gives; also 0 hits for "Pinowski Curve". — Haeleth Talk 22:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; pretty much the definition of original research. MCB 02:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hoax. I'd call it 'original research', but it seems to be trying to pass off an X-Y plot as original, by plotting zero over time and 'discovering' that the line is horizontal. Peter Grey 07:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete . - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N00bsled[edit]

Not notable, "common internet slang" which has only 3 hits on Google, two of which are the Urban Dictionary Wangi 15:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ah, Urban Dictionary. A great place for people to invent slang and pretend it's actually used. --Optichan 17:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn slang; WP:ISNOT Urban Dictionary — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this belongs at Urban DictionaryLord Of Ketchup 17:51, 25 October
  • Delete Some guy probably just made it up and is trying to get it used. Throw it in the Urban Dictionary. Devotchka 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave Who are you to say this isn't common internet slang? Just because a Google search doesn't turn up many results, I still see it used on online games often. Ex. Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Battlefield 2 --Poster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.169.149 (talk • contribs)
    Comment: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks/wangi
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Brookie as attack page. --GraemeL (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neal touchton[edit]

Looks like it was already speedied perhaps?--Isotope23 16:28, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NEHRU INSTITUTE OF MOUNTAINEERING-Uttarkashi[edit]

  • Delete Commercial, POV, bad formatting; could make into an informational article instead, but subject may not be notable enough to justify inclusion. 70.27.59.200 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable enough, but it is a copyvio from http://www.nimindia.org/ --Pamri • Talk 03:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by DragonflySixtyseven as G1 and A7. --GraemeL (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pharazyn[edit]

Non-notable New Zealand teenager.

Above unsigned nomination is by User:WAvegetarian. jni 07:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. jni 07:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A7 no assertion of notability or G1 lack of context. Already tagged for WP:CSD. Capitalistroadster 07:31, 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 into Neuro-linguistic programming. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NLP Weekly[edit]

This article sounds much like advertisement to me. Nothing important or encyclopedia-worth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.37.62.192 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge as External Link into Neuro-linguistic programming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intersofia (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 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 Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oteri oghoghomeh[edit]

  • Fixing nomination.--Isotope23 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And after reading article, Delete, borderline nonsense.--Isotope23 16:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete, nn-bio. If the author has a crush on Mr. Oghoghomeh, she should just tell him. --Trovatore 18:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tagged it speedy... probably should have just done that in the first place.--Isotope23 20:37, 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.

hi there - teresa was here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.54.58.4 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2014 (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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PasForum[edit]

Non-Notable software delete Peyna 03:28, 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 (entry isn't existing anymore). -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platform 10[edit]

Presumably some form of design group. Non-notable and unencyclopedic. the wub "?!" 18:49, 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 redirect to Pokémon (video games). --Celestianpower háblame 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokegods[edit]

Subtrivial fancruft that most Pokemon fans wouldn't be interested in. What little information that 'needs' to be covered is detailed in Pokémon (video games)#Codes and glitches and its subsections. Saberwyn 05:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per noimination. Saberwyn 05:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I'm having trouble finding any assertions of fact in this article. Pokémon (video games) already covers this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. glitches are already covered in the main Pokemon article. --Optichan 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as usual, no deletion required. The redirect could be useful to someone. Trollderella 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was planning to replace this with a redirect anyway. Not sure why I didn't mention that. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's mentioned now. And I'm thinking a redirect may be appropriate as well. --Optichan 16:16, 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 KEEP Marskell 11:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polystation[edit]

Article about an illegal knockoff of a Nintendo game system. Doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic or notable. tregoweth 01:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is a well known product. Carioca 03:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google search for "Polystation" (excluding Wikipedia entries and mirrors) returns 20,800 hits. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a fan of Nintendo knockoffs (whether they are illegal or not). --SuperDude 09:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pragma-dialectics[edit]

Non-notable, few Google results for either term. — ceejayoz talk 01:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 01:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - genuine and verifiable theory, subject of numerous books from several academic presses (e.g. [8], [9]). Merely failing to get tens of thousands of Google hits is not a criterion for deletion. — Haeleth Talk 21:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is one of the major approaches to argumentation, which is what is known in North America as informal logic. Perhaps the title should be changed to "Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation." Moreover, wikipedia article on "argumentation theory" has to be merged with this; it is talking about the same thing.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Faces[edit]

Not convinced of notablity. Molotov (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 02:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable under WP:V and not meeting WP:music. A Google search for "Pretty Faces" Boston band did not come up with much early about that band see [10] An Allmusic.com search proved similarly fruitless. The article makes no claims of notability under WP:music such as albums or tours. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --rob 08:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great name, though. A tribute to The Pretty Things and The Small Faces, perhaps? StarryEyes 23:44, 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 15:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Shaft[edit]

I've listed this for deletion as I believe this article is not significant enough to be listed on Wikipedia on its own and it is more or less a promotion their e-federation. While there are articles on these kind of games such as e-wrestling and e-federation, I don't think any e-fed should really have their own article. --Oakster 18:32, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pudgeworth[edit]

  • Delete FuelWagon 15:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? This is common internet slang. People need to know about Pudgeworth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.169.149 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Common internet slang" tends to get literally millions of google hits. Pudgeworth gets four - two on Urban dictionary, one as an unrelated proper name, and one that might possibly be vaguely related to this article, but I couldn't be bothered looking at it more closely. —Cryptic (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Cryptic above. Thanks/Wangi 15:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cryptic. --Optichan 17:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Wiktionary won't take this because it is a protologism. Delete. Uncle G 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G. MCB 02:16, 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 06:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qpclan.org Starcraft Latin Gamers[edit]

Non notable Starcraft clan CambridgeBayWeather 04:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is Well Recognized by Active Starcraft Community, we have support of websites like Wgtour.com, Pgtour.net, Teamliquid.net, etc and they all have their own article here at Wikipedia. Please Understand this is the most recognized Latin Clan out there, and with the time we will be improving this article as much as possible. Greetings. DarkXprT 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC) DarkXprT[reply]
  • Although the clan is not one of the best clans on Earth in terms of good players, the web site is one of the most comprehensive web sites about Starcraft and, no doubt, it's the largest Starcraft community in Spanish. 6,714 registered users (as of October 2005) is quite a lot of people!! BaSs 05:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC) DarkXprT[reply]
  • Are You kidding? This article MIGHT NOT be erased!. This clan is very recognized by many koreans and Lots of important websites. It has bringed alot of attention. And its a nice History. Keep updating it!. Also yes, translate it to spanish but also let it be here in english.
  • Delete, NN starcruft. ComCat 01:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not transwiki. NatusRoma 07:48, 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 06:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rakanishu[edit]

Seems to be about a relatively insignificant character in a game. Very little information that probably can't be expanded upon. -Nameneko 05:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I see no assertion of importance. I probably would have speedied it becaues I suppose if you don't know Diablo it seems rather incoherent. gren グレン 06:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I know what it is I don't really have an opinion on it. Before it was just garbled. gren グレン 23:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, character in a notable video game. Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 12:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to game. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either into the game article or into an article on Diablo II characters. Doesn't need an article of its own, but does claim enough notability within the game to be apparently worth mentioning somewhere. — Haeleth Talk 22:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with game article. Joe.decock 22:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Diablo II. Denni☯ 00:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep. I'm not sure if this thing can be significantly expanded, and as far as I know there isn't much information out there about this thing either, but it still is a perfectly valid topic. If left as an article, it could use some minor cleanup and perhaps a screenshot. --Wwwwolf 15:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rather important character.Exe 23:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RECOMMENDATION No. R(89)12[edit]

No need to have a page for every recommendation a governing body puts out. Non-notable. — ceejayoz talk 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 19:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's source text. Tempshill 19:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primary source, not encyclopedic. MCB 02:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Reds[edit]

Promotion for a mod which is non-notable outside of the modding team themselves, not worthy of encyclopedia entry Coyote-37 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not GameFaqs, this mod has no relevance to the wider community, even among gamers.Coyote-37 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:46, 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 boldly merged into road safety. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Road safety"[edit]

Original research. I've looked at the Road safety article, and I don't think anything can be merged with it, really.--Shanel 22:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emphatically not original research. See the citations listed at the foot of the article. - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, I should have said essay instead. It does sound like one.--Shanel 23:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not that either. Dispute the title by all means, but this is a genuine article about a documented issue. - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution[edit]

Road safety is already long and merging a consideration of this topic will make it longer than desirable, but there is a large section on road safety interventions which is getting quite detailed; it would be possible to split that out as Road safety (interventions). Alternatively I could keep this (which I'm still actively researching and have just got some more source papers) and retitle it Road safety (controversy) or some such. I don't much mind which. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road safety is an important subject, with numerous aspects, so I could see a number of detailed articles being summarised in the main road safety article. There is already management systems for road safety, so why not road safety interventions too? GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed[edit]

I have merged the content and redirected the page, per suggestions above. Can someone please close the AfD? Thanks. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:42, 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 ☎ ) 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Berger Biography[edit]

The notable "Sandy Berger" already has his own article. This "Sandy Berger" is a non-notable website maintainer and author who has apparently written 3 non-notable books. Article title is confusing because of the notable Sandy Berger. Tempshill 19:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How can I rename the title so that this article will not be deleted? User: Destiny/Destiny

  • Weak Delete upper end of non-notable, but still not notable (at least not this particular Sandy Berger).--Isotope23 20:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll vote delete if not userfied, which I think would be better. Can I suggest someone with more wiki-experience than me approaches the author to explain the process? Incidentally, if doing so, note that the author is User:Destinyg not User: Destiny/Destiny as appears above. AndyJones 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that user Destiny or DestinyG is Sandy Berger, you could place the information on your user page providing that you control the copyright from the compukiss Meet Sandy page. The article breaches our WP:Copyvio policy which aims to ensure that copyrighted material belonging to other people on other pages. It also violates WP:VANITY if you are Sandy Berger in that it seeks to promote yourself or close friends or relatives. We have another policy called WP:NPOV or Neutral Point Of View which is considered to be a fundamental policy. This provides that all articles aim to present a objective overview of the topic. Articles written by the subject have difficulty doing so. There may well be case for an article about this Sandy Berger but not an article written by her or a copyright violation. If it can be userfied without a copyright violation to user Destiny's page that should happen. If not delete. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 (nn-bio). DES (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SATOKO[edit]

Non-notable person. Google returns 100 results of just the name. Many pages are either wiki mirrors or edu pages where this person teaches. only 61 results with this search. -- Malo 03:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably could have qualified for a speedy under nn-bio. Peyna 04:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. MCB 21:03, 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 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Naberrie[edit]

a Google search shows only one match, which points to a since-updated wikipedia article. Ze miguel 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Ze miguel 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Self-admitted fancruft: "Serena Naberrie is a fan-created character. She is not in the actual Star Wars Universe." --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -LtNOWIS 20:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination & above. 70.27.59.200 20:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Woods[edit]

The article seems to be about a non notable person. Google does not seem to return any relevant data.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sokley[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio (A7), but is about a name not a person. Arguably about a number of real individuals, I suppose, but still. Delete since WP:ISNOT a genealogy. -Splashtalk 03:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Peyna 03:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible, per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic: Time Attacked[edit]

Delete: This is a fangame, not official...--FlareNUKE 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, software equivalent of fanfic. —Cryptic (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's an incredibly detailed fangame, there's enough information here, and it has a decent following. -Chang Air


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sporkeh[edit]

Tagged for speedy as recreation, but has never been AfD'd. Appears to be a good-faith article (although I had to remove some slightly silly stuff). Whether we collect articles on each virus or not, is for AfD. -Splashtalk 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about this one, but if it stays, it can use a copyedit for us non-virus experts. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 18:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be fake. No information on "sporkeh" or "sp0rkeh" in McAfee's virus archives, and really, what virus is related to the Cyberathlete Professional League and Counter-Strike? As to the larger question of whether every computer virus deserves an article, that's a big emphatic no as there are literally millions of viruses that affect Windows. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. --FOo 05:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the absence from McAfee's virus library which is pretty comprehensive, this appears to be a hoax, and not one that has generated any interest apart from this AfD (note that I made no explicit request in my nomination, so I'm not doubling up). -Splashtalk 06:48, 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 speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spray (rapper)[edit]

NN rapper. Currently a student at Tufts University. "His first and second albums... were self produced and are widely unavailable." --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't recall encountering the phrase widely unavailable before, but that plus WP:MUSIC is a strong indication to delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as this page is a duplicate of Mason Stahl. It was probably created in an effort to circumvent the AFD nomination under way on that page. Eddie.willers 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lomn.--Isotope23 21:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Stahl Tom harrison 22:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, clear attempt to circumvent AfD. StarryEyes 00:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the first deletion succeeds, delete this as recreation of deleted material in an attempt to circumvent afd. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i created the page. it was partially an effort to circumvent AFD, but really, to see how long it would take to pick up. took like a day. delete it regardless of the fate of Mason Stahl, if that page stays this is just a dupe and if that page is deleted then this page is reposted deleted material. get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.63.14 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the original author has agreed to delete, I've tagged the page for a speedy deletion. NOTE: Original author of page was at IP address 82.83.62.158, same IP block as above poster, so it is most likely the same person. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been deleted as requested. JoJan 18:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squeequo[edit]

Admitted neologism. Possibly a patent nonsense candidate. 202.156.6.54 00:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as unverifiable nonsense. - Sensor 00:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the WP:CSD for "patent nonsense" requires that the article consist of nonsensical text or gibberish. This article does not fall within that category. In addition, I don't believe it falls under WP:CSD A1 either, so this is not a candidate for speedy deletion under any of our current criteria. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 16:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletiquate neologism. — Haeleth Talk 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G3. Silly vandalism. --Clay Collier 22:03, 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 06:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboat crime[edit]

This page was listed under cleanup, but I feel it should be deleted. The article has little or nothing to do with the title. It reads like a copyvio, but I can't prove it. Considering the Steamboat article mentions nothing about steamboat crime, I feel there is no need for an article about steamboat crime. —Brim 06:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Virtually nothing identifiable that can be verified: names, dates, etc.
  • The few details that are given are spurious.
    • Incident said to occur in St. Petersburg on the Mississippi in the 1840s. The place is fictional: it is the setting of Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer (which was understood to be based on Hannibal, Missouri, but "St. Petersburg" does not in fact exist). Coincidentally, 1840's is also the time Tom Sawyer is set in. Perhaps Twain's novels would be the place to look for more information.
    • The only other identifiable element is the stories being said to appear in the "Missippi River Picayune". I so far been have been unable to verify the existence of this publication, even when correcting the spelling of Mississippi.
--Tabor 17:13, 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 no consensus . - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Sanchez[edit]

Sad to say, but this project appears to be dead in the water. There are no facts guiding this article, it's pure speculation. Disappointed as I am, us Lizzie McGuire fans need to face reality that this potential show - like many other pilots - has been permanently shelved and as thus, its article either needs to be merged back with the Lizzie article or deleted entirely.--The lorax 06:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as being unverifiable and remove mention from Lizzie article too. All links I could find where from forums, Wikipedia mirrors or other sites that depend on user input. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if necessary redirect. The project was planned, so a redirect or stub to explain that it never went anywhere is appropriate. `Trollderella 17:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lizzie McGuire. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm --JAranda | watz sup 23:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stood[edit]

I don't think this is a speedy (for which it was tagged as an "elementary dicdef", but I'm not sure it's ever going to be an encyclopedic article, either. -Splashtalk 03:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - dicdef isn't a speedy delete criteria, but this article is still a dicdef and already covered on Wiktionary, so it serves no purpose here. Peyna
  • Delete dicdef. Denni☯ 03:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stood should be deleted as a dictdef with no potential as an encyclopedia article. Capitalistroadster 03:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better yet, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. This can't be expanded into an article. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Optichan 16:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unexpandable dicdef, already on Wiktionary. MCB 20:59, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunward cohousing[edit]

NN housing community/development. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting ... need some more input on this. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel that 650+ Google hits is enough notability for a real-world topic. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [12]. Tagged and bagged. --GraemeL (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 03:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 23:55, 3 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 Speedy Deleted. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweaty anus[edit]

non-encyclopedic, puerile joke BrainyBroad 05:23, 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 15:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and their meanings[edit]

Not sure I see what the point of this page is. No specific content, nothing links to it...— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonMoos (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a list of links to symbols, as well a link to List of symbols, which fulfills the (supposed) purpose of this page admirably. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Animit[edit]

The article refers to this band's new name: the article on which was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetry Breaking. I presume this article should be considered by AfD as a result. -Splashtalk 17:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The eXile[edit]

Propaganda, self-promotion, advertising, libel. Please notice that the so-called Pranks are a record of criminal activity (e.g. assault) or pure vanity non-sense (e.g. we gate crashed) I have edited out the libelous material about myself (pde). eXile is the English language propanganda arm of Eduard Limonovs National Bolshevik Party which is a facist hate mongering organization which also has engaged in violent activities, e.g. the seizure of St. Peters Church in Riga on the eve of the national holiday. Limonov has been convicted and jailed on felony arms violations. 69.253.195.228 03:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: fixing broken nomination. The nomination borders on bad faith, since the article was nominated for deletion in August, perhaps by the same editor, and was kept unanimously. Suggest speedy keep, but don't want to do this unilaterally. — brighterorange (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep; being self-promotion is the only valid reason for deletion given, but this article isn't self promotion. nominator has an apparent vendetta and article passed AfD only 2 months ago. — brighterorange (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per brighterorange. Nominating user shows quite a bit of bias and POV in this situation and should probably recuse him/herself. — ceejayoz talk 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per brighterorange. Wikipedia is not a place for those who don't want to read objectional material, and that includes this magazine. - Sensor 00:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per above comments. tregoweth 00:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, nomination for deletion almost certainly made in bad faith. nominator has made several attempts to quelch mentions of the eXile including obfuscating the disambiguator page as well as propping up a confused article called The Exile to impede traffic to the original article. nominator purports to be the Peter Ekman, a person with a known vendetta against the eXile. Clarence Thomas 00:51, 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 15:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Felpudits[edit]

Book/story created by "a mexican boy". No Google hits. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 19:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like self-glam or something similar. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:47, 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 Speedy Delete by Friday as no context. --GraemeL (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fist Four[edit]

Self evident vanity page 63.136.117.254 20:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (Does this qualify for a speedy per A1 "insufficient context"?) — Haeleth Talk 20:39, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninth Wimbledon (Sacred Heart) Scout Troop[edit]

NN scout troop. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. We have another article on the same topic, with a longer edit history, at 9th Wimbledon. No vote. AndyJones 17:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largest scout troop in England seems notable to me. Merge into 9th Wimbledon. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd delete both of the articles. (First of all, the new one is almost a complete word-for-word duplicate, right down to sentences like "The Ninth's scale may have been extraordinary, but this had other effects on the atmosphere in the Troop." It's obviously a copy, possibly an indirect one.) I don't see any particular notability to this scout troop beyond simply being (or having in the past been; it's unclear) the numerically largest in the UK or Europe; it does not seem to be widely discussed or referenced. (It's also very unlikely to be notable on a world scale; the troop I belonged to in the U.S. had 90 members and it was pretty average.) MCB 02:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources, unverifiable --redstucco 09:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RollingStone.com Message Boards[edit]

nn message board. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated from discussion: How does this go up for deletion consideration yet no one has a problem with the articles for 4chan, GameFAQ and YTMND? What's the difference? Considering I only heard about all 3 of those a week ago after 8 years on the internet, I'd like to know what's so "notable" about them. And please spend more than 15 minutes thinking about it, I'd appreciate that. Enough4 04:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about this message board. If you don't think the others should be here, then nominate them and let the consensus of the editors be heard. In the meantime, discuss why a defunct message board should have an article in an international encyclopedia? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the others have yet to be deleted suggests a precedent that message boards are, apparently, good enough for articles in this international encyclopedia. So it's more than apt for me to be bringing them up in this discussion. And I have no idea what the boards being "defunct" has anything to do with it. As if articles on people and events of the past aren't included. If it happened, it happened. There's plenty of information to be included in this article, that's why I set up the article as a temporary template. I expect (hope) that something close to 20 people will be working on this article by this time next week. Point is, if those articles made it through, then there's no reason this one shouldn't unless you are of the mind that the message boards of this article aren't important, and that's an opinion and nothing more. I consider the hundreds and hundreds of dedicated posters that made up this community, not to mention the almost 10 year history the boards have, to match any requirement of message board notability. It won't be any more or less than any other such article. Enough4 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Presumably deleted because Rolling Stone thought it was not worthy of retention. At best worthy of a couple of lines in that article but article fails to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 04:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine's decision to delete the community pages after 10 years reflects a business decision and does not reflect on the notability of this article any more than 4chan's "4 deaths" reflects it's notability. Enough4 04:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this article is less than 1% complete as is envisioned. I feel that flagging it for deletion is premature and unfair. Enough4 04:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless notability of the board is established. --Vsion 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, defunct message board. Dottore So 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have an article on the magazine. Messageboards and forums can easily be mentioned in a few lines in the article on the site or publication they're attached to. This article is riddled with POV and unverifiable statements. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The RollingStone.com Message Boards (???-05/2005) was a vibrant internet community that congregated on the community pages of the Rolling Stone magazine website, with an estimated constituency of 500 frequent posters. The community was filled with diverse, knowledgable and personable posters, almost all of whom shared an ironic dislike for the website's parent magazine.

What comes after that is factual and can be included in the article on the magazine. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect to Rolling Stone, maybe including a line about the message board in that article if you want. It doesn't seem to be notable to me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The unchecked power of the Principal Investigator[edit]

Personal essay

(Double vote above is by article's author.) MCB 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although adding it to my Titles to Acquire list. Unchecked power is always good. The above two votes appear to be invalid, though. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 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 06:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Road[edit]

"All anyone really knows is that there are big red gates on the side of the road leading practically begging for ghost hunters to explore." I don't think we're supposed to infer that the gates are literally begging, which is a shame, because that alone would make Toad Road notable. Unfortunately, merely having red gates and being thought to be a bit spooky doesn't make it notable. Delete. TheMadBaron 12:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Though it is slightly amusing. :) --Syrthiss 12:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of whether or not it actually is haunted, many people *believe* that Toad Road is a place of supernatural activity, and thus it does have an impact on modern culture. (preceding unsigned comment by 199.79.168.160 (talk · contribs) )
    The oracle of the modern age (google) conflicts with this statement, though. No single hit about this particular Toad Road in the first 8 pages. --Syrthiss 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anon can you WP:CITE any credible third-party sources to back up this statement? Kappa 13:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified by reliable sources. If the author is dead set on keeping the content, try putting it on a personal website or wikinfo or something. Here at Wikipedia, articles are expected to be backed up by sources. Friday (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must... obey... oracle... Delete per nom and Syrthiss. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to verifiability problems of article under WP:V. Possible candidate for BJAODN. Capitalistroadster 18:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (but trim all the unverifiable speculation). It does seem to be a genuine regional urban legend. Here and here: a couple of references from the York Daily Record. One refers to a book source, Weird Pennsylvania. Tearlach 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is real there is no harm in starting from scratch with verifiable sources. Gamaliel 19:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources provided, thanks Tearlach. Kappa 20:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban legend. Delete unless completely rewritten, as per Gamaliel. - Mike Rosoft 20:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, nn local local legend. But, whoa, that's a spooky picture. How do they do that? MCB 21:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Keep if an actual haunted place in the local folklore, but needs to substantiate that claim. Peter Grey 07:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP I saw a ghoooooooooooooooooooooooooost there it was scaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaary
  • Delete, needs to be rewritten with sources and even the image doesn't have a proper source! So might as well... --Foofy 15:55, 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 KEEP Marskell 11:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Marui[edit]

Pure advertising. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 02:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 407,000 google hits, including a bunch of sponsored links. Kappa 13:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google search returns about 420,000 hits for me; the article in its present form doesn't read like advertising and needs only a bit of cleanup to qualify as a useful, factual article about a notable corporate entity. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs cleaning up (at present it's more like "List of Tokyo Marui products"), but we probably need something under this heading, and it's a good enough base to build on. — Haeleth Talk 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I was at this very minute trying to research some history of this company to add to the Wikicities R/C wiki and I found this at a mirror site. I had a Tokyo Marui "Shogun" 4x4 electric buggy and a friend of mine had the "Big Bear" monster truck, possibly one of the most important R/C models of all time. Agree it could use a bit of tweaking and some entries beyond the airguns. I found out they even make a radio controlled Godzilla! - Lucky 6.9 05:50, 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 move to Wiktionary. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toodles[edit]

Dicdef. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Say toodles to this article. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Doctor Whom 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Thelb4 19:32, 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 Marskell 11:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls (Artemis Fowl)[edit]

Trolls in Artemis Fowl are just like every other kind of troll. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Not entirely. As far as I know regular trolls are not known for digging underground tunnels by eating dirt and passing wind to move the dirt away (based on memory of reading the first book). Seems sufficiently different to warrant a seperate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're thinking of dwarfs. Sonic Mew | talk to me 11:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. If there is a good merge target, then merging would be a good idea in this case. Sonic Mew | talk to me 11:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - well, the sweeping statement about "every other kind of troll" is misleading. We have those little plastic pen-ends with multicoloured hair; we have the typical mythological troll, and we have your common garden Internet troll. If you glance at Troll (disambiguation), you'll find that we have articles on an abundance of meanings of the word troll, not to mention articles giving the facts about various literary and cultural interpretations of the concept. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 17:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. We have other kinds of Trolls in Wikipedia. Carioca 01:19, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uberfuze[edit]

Possible neologism. No hits on Google.  Denelson83  19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry on UrbanDictionary either. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there appears to be no AFD tag on Uberfuze, and I am not sure how to do this retrospectively. Sliggy 22:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you meant retroactively. I added it for you. There's only a few hours' difference between when you listed it here and when I added, so I doubt that's that big of a deal. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I did indeed mean retroactively. Thanks also for adding the tag; presumably the time lag is short enough to be irrelevant. Sliggy 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One irrelevant entry at Google for a search using überfuse variant spelling, none for uberfuze or uberfuse (that is without the umlaut). Neologism, delete. Sliggy 22:30, 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 15:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Universal hacking corporation[edit]

Not notable. Hypes a website that no longer exists. Art LaPella 23:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (11:15, 26 October 2005 RHaworth deleted "Vandalismo" (empty)) - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalismo[edit]

  • Delete.Nonsense (Any could point me toward the instructions for a speedy delete nomination?) Tony Bruguier 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:CSD and familiarize yourself with the different justifications for a speedy deletion. There are various templates to facilitate speedies, such as {{db}} and {{nonsense}}, and a whole host of more specific ones like {{nn-bio}}. —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to vandalism. It says (in Portuguese): Vandalism is a bad thing. It is not worth (doing it). Don't confuse a foreign language with nonsense. Ejrrjs | What? 01:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial, unencyclopedic utterance, probably speediable as CSD:A1. MCB 02:42, 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 Speedy Deleted by Splash. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victorism[edit]

Relisting this AfD because the article was recreated. The references cited are all fake, too. Recommend a delete followed by a protect from recreation order. Ziggurat 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While it was recreated after consensus to delete, it is probably not speediable as the problem was that it was original research, and this appears to be a different version. Of course, as I don't have sysop powers, I can't check that for sure. Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's pretty similar to the original (from memory), but this one is also very OR / unverifiable / advertisement of freesite. As I noted, none of the references actually exist, and were probably added to muddy the waters of the AfD discussion. Ziggurat 01:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed for speedy, as was jsut debated on and deleted yesterday. If cannot be speedy, then vote delete.—Gaff ταλκ 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might be a month off there, it was September, not October 24th. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:27, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete (users with first edits discounted) --Doc (?) 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victorism[edit]

No relevant search results, original research if I'm not mistaken Rx StrangeLove 03:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research, but their hearts are in the right place! Ziggurat 11:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original nutjobery. — Phil Welch 21:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 [13]
  • not original there are 6 sources!, I could find a lot of info on it on the web very interesting makes a lot of sense -- comment from User:Chenlikang ([14])
  • Delete no redeaming knowledge content. Pete.Hurd 05:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep this awesome article! -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 [15]
  • Keep The best philosophy I read in years! -- comment from User:128.117.68.53 [16]
  • delete per nominator -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously not a piece of original research--bibliography cites six sources. ChXu 01:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep An excellent and informative article on a highly influential philosophy that is reshaping the modern world. 71.208.85.84 04:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A fascinating in-depth description of Victorism, a highly developed political and social model that has merited a Wikipedia article for years, considering how widespread its influence, support, and recognition have become. PabloX 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep votes are all first-edits, for those of you keeping track. Delete. --fvw* 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI have read this article on the 22nd and I think this is a great well thought article on what could be the next world order.JohnRusteforid this is the users first edit Rx StrangeLove 23:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI am a philosopher at Harvard and though I think it is not well written it deserves a spot on Wikipedia and if well-written, may have a chance in the real world* unsigned comment by user:KokonMan132, the users first edit. Rx StrangeLove 23:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Videography of Mariah Carey[edit]

Information on the directors of Carey's music videos is already present on the relevant single articles. As is information about on which DVDs and home videos the music videos are available on, although I'd strongly argue that that information is only of interest to Carey fans who are actually willing to go out and buy those. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey. Extraordinary Machine 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup. Delete. Proto t c 13:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Keep. --DrippingInk 01:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep borderline fancruft, but could be useful as a distinct article from the one on singles by her. Youngamerican 03:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, when will you people understand that this is an encyclopedia and should contain as much information as possible. This article may be of interest to those studying and/or writing an article about Carey and not just to her fans. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's not borderline, surely, but deep in fancruft territory. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It took me a while to realize what this was. It's a table-formatted list of videos for Mariah Carey songs. It's not clear why this isn't named "List of videos for Mariah Carey songs" or somesuch, but this is not a list of music videos that Mariah Carey has directed (although I presume that she "starred in" them). This is not an encyclopedia article and it is pretending to not be a list. It is certainly not helpful if someone were doing "research", as there is no indication where one might find encyclopedic information on its subject, and if someone were to be "researching" music videos for Mariah Carey songs, I imagine that person would expect to find any discussion of Mariah Carey promotional materials in the articles about the songs they would be promoting. Jkelly 00:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's helpful to see who directed and such OmegaWikipedia 11:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 12:15, 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 delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V.U.E., Vuer Marking[edit]

tagged as speedy, but does not fit criteria. Unverifiable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discussion on Talk:V.U.E. tells us that this "clandestine sport" is too secret for Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 11:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret, since it sounds both plausible and, if true, rather notable. But it just isn't verifiable. The articles will, of course, be recreatable if verifiable evidence does materialise in future, so it's not like we're losing anything permanently by deleting them now. — Haeleth Talk 21:17, 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. – ABCDe✉ 01:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Fire Brigade[edit]

This article has been on cleanup since Oct 2004. There is nothing to indicate that it is notable enough to be given its own article. Of the pages that link to it, exactly one is an article, and it's Warsaw, where it resides in the See Also section. There is little information worth merging, or I would suggest that. User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig 05:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig 05:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important. Kappa 12:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it any more important than any other fire department, so much so that it needs an article of its own? ♠PMC♠ 23:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's not really a question for Afd, but Warsaw is a large capital city. Kappa 00:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, "Does this subject need an article?" is pretty much what AFD is for, as far as I can tell. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would explain your bizarre voting. Kappa 15:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see you voting keep on garage bands, websites, neologisms, non-notable people, etc. Everyone has a point where they say, "You know, this isn't an encyclopedic subject." - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • No-one would search for these things, and there is generally no verfiable informational available about them, so the question of whether they need an article or not is irrelevant. Kappa 07:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a timed game. This is a worthy subject, and the data captured thus far doesn't merge well into Warsaw. Unfocused 17:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Warsaw, where interested users are more likely to find it. Denni☯ 00:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if this was a famous fire department (like the NYFD) then I could understand, but . . . 24.101.81.135 01:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know it's not famous? Kappa 01:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as all signs point to this being entirely unexpandable. This article doesn't even provide sufficient context to tell which Warsaw it's talking about. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about the sign pointing to the Polish wikipedia? ----
      • Could easily have been added in error, on the assumption that this was about the Warsaw, Poland fire brigade. The interwiki link wasn't added by the original author. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How many fire departments do you think Jan Robosz was involved with in 1835? Kappa 07:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK - this is worse than I thought: Warsaw, the capital of Poland; Warsaw, Illinois; Warsaw, Indiana; * Warsaw, Kentucky; Warsaw, Missouri; Warsaw, New York; Warsaw, North Carolina; Warsaw, Ohio; and Warsaw, Virginia all have fire departments of brigades. I would imagine that the information for most of these can go in the article for the place, with some kind of disambig, larger places, like the capital of Poland might well merit their own article. Trollderella 04:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Warsaw Poland is clearly the primary meaning of Warsaw. This is a national capital we're talking about. It's a pity that we don't have more Polish contributors to improve it faster, but deleting valuable stubs is a good way to ensure that problem endures. CalJW 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not encyclopedic. Fails to inform me as to what's special about this brigade. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wetlabel[edit]

The page appears to be spam. --Nlu 05:24, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Nomad Co-Op[edit]

Non-notable co-op, possible advertising. -- DS1953 talk 03:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't read like advertising to me, but it's certainly non-notable. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Only 19 hits on Google search of this phrase. ---Aude 00:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually has some expansion potential...possibly keepable. Number of Google hits does increase significantly if you skip the "co-op" and just search on "Wireless Nomad"; although you do still have to filter out the odd unrelated use, you surpass 19 Google hits for this particular one no later than page 3. Plus they've been on Boing Boing (just a couple of days ago, in fact, which probably accounts for the sudden addition.) I'll see what I can do cleanupwise. Bearcat 06:40, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XAMPP/Temp now moved to XAMPP[edit]

  • Delete: This is product information / advertising. 66.25.38.14 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Apache HTTP Server (or just add the single external link to that article). It is just a single distribution package (a popular one though); definitely worth mentioning but most definitely not notable enough for its own article. --Wwwwolf 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WAMP and LAMP (software bundle). utcursch | talk 06:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Merge perhaps if you can find a suitable place, but strictly speaking it's neither WAMP or LAMP and certainly not Apache. I almost wonder if the people who voted for deletion/merging know what it is. It's a combination of packages beyond Apache, MySQL and PHP/Perl. I agree it's not a very good article, but there are far worse. It should be listed as a paget for improvement, not just arbitrarily destroyed. (Personally I wouldn't use it, I'm a roll your own type of guy, but I don't see why it got listed.) Gabe 20:13, 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 Speedy Delete by DragonflySixtyseven as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zfar Ewr Drahan[edit]

This only gets five hit on Google. The contributor was not a user which makes me suspicious that this article is spurious. Alan Liefting 06:49, 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.

por que borraron esto? los odio u.u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.138.79.74 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2017 (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 Speedy Delete by Wayward as nonsense. --GraemeL (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zigota[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a pro-life argument, humor, or what. "Zigota" looks like the word "zygote," but I can't find what language that would be. I guess it doesn't matter; WP already has a zygote article. The thing about the Croatian Parliament seems to be a joke; searching on Google for "zigota" and "croatian parliament" produces only results derived from this article. A user has already called this vandalism on the article's discussion page, and I must say that it doesn't seem to belong in wikipedia. Delete. Joel7687 06:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tagged it with {{nonsense}}. It says "Zigota is not ENTIRE, UNIQUE, single cell HUMAN BEING, but they do sit in Croatian Parliament." Kappa 12:45, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_25&oldid=1081093474"