Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 27 October 29 >

Purge server cache

October 28[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 05:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12 Moons[edit]

With one album, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Not on All Music Guide. Google searches for the band name together with "Michael Andersen", "psychedelic trance" or "Solid State" all give less than 477 hits. Punkmorten 15:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Punkmorten 15:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Presently NN. PJM 16:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, though will be watching page for updates--Reflex Reaction 17:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Info from band's web site indicates they fail WP:NMG. Allmusic wouldn't have much info on them if they haven't released anything in the US, though. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TECannon 07:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5T(Asian)[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up in a huge way. There appears to be a lot of news coverage from Australia when one looks for "'5T' 'Asian gang'" on Google. I'm not sure how lasting an impact they're going to have, but they're somewhat notable. Devotchka 05:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Alphax τεχ 06:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Alphax τεχ 06:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to this Sydney Morning Herald article for 2002, they were active around Cabramatta and led to a Parliamentary Inquiry see [1]. They were thought to have split into several gangs. Capitalistroadster 06:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable outside of the context of Vietnamese street gangs in Sydney. That broader issue would be a neat article tho. Dxco 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Mention under Macquarie Fields Keep rewritten well Prashanthns 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, terrible article at present and needs renaming anyway, but the topic is certainly notable. --Stormie 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up and expanded the article. Should be moved to 5T if kept. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 05:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, and its existence helps address systemic bias. Jacqui ★ 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable organised crime gang from major city. -- Cnwb 23:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with more editing and a rename should be an interesting article. pfctdayelise 23:58, 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. – ABCDe✉ 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 2003[edit]

Non notable. If we start allowing radio station top x of x, we're going to end up with alot of crap. So many stations. Too unwieldly. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is just a numbered list of songs. No context. Delete. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did propose criteria for broadcasting notability, but it hasn't gotten much attention. -- Kjkolb 01:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV list. Gazpacho 01:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 02:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. I wish it were more clear what specific radio station this is, though, so that we could be sure to mention that this station did this list. (We wouldn't want to include the actual list there, either, though.) --Jacqui ★ 04:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too obscure, no context, too esoteric. --Dante 04:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Not maintainable. Not notable. --Clay Collier 06:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everybody - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is this article about? it seems to me just to be a list of songs. and per above. Newyorktimescrossword 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 Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aashti[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ABOK[edit]

Non-notable boat team, gets only a few results on Google. -- Kjkolb 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable—Bitmappity 02:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amateur sports team. I believe that in general, teams need to be either professional or at least won some sort of championship in order to become valid topics for an encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable team with a very noble mission statement but hardly encyclopediac. Prashanthns 09:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just an annotated link, not an article, so it's hard to tell whether the topic would be suitable for Wikipedia or not, but the entry as it stands contributes nothing that a Google search wouldn't. If the link were broken, the entry would become effectively nothing, which makes it painfully unmaintainable. TECannon 11:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:43, 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 speedy deleted. (Mel Etitis deleted "All Red As Fire" (no notability claimed; vanity page for band)) - Mailer Diablo 05:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Red As Fire[edit]

Bandvanity, apparently has not toured or been signed

  • Delete. Gazpacho 04:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even one Google result for "'All Red as Fire' 'Ottawa'". Devotchka 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish this band well and will be happy to see them back in Wikipedia after they release some albums. TECannon 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments. Punkmorten 20:37, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. - Nichalp

Alok[edit]

A character in online Everquest RPG. It is laughable to claim that such subject is somehow encyclopedic. Delete - possible candidate for speedy deletion, but I don't know under what criteria. - Mike Rosoft 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. There's no CSD for this (though IIRC there was a proposal for something that would have covered such player characters), unless you want to stretch A7, but it's an obvious delete. — brighterorange (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete exceedingly nn. Dxco 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could have been speedied. Tintin 00:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nil Einne 14:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animeondvd.com[edit]

Website doesn't appear to be notable. It only has 67 unique search results and only 24 unique web pages link to the site. -- Kjkolb 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In addition to nn issue, the article is so poorly worded that I can't even work out what it's saying. — Haeleth Talk 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article name seems to imply that they sell or discuss anime DVDs, but the article doesn't make damn sense. --Optichan 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it's saying that their DVDs are in English and Japanese. I'm not sure how they're doing it. Maybe they have English subtitles. -- Kjkolb 01:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article functions only as advertising Pete.Hurd 22:41, 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 05:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Logistics For Men[edit]

basically an ad; if all the PoV was removed, nothing would be left FRS 16:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE per nomination FRS 16:22, 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 Appletalk. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appletalk Filing Protocol[edit]

This article is already included in Appletalk, which is much more complete and authoratative. This page serves no purpose. --Bachrach44 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might make more sense to redirect it to Apple Filing Protocol. --BenjaminTsai 06:06, 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 rewritten stub by Fg2. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archdiocese of Owerri[edit]

This page does not in any way conform to even the most basic standards for an encyclopedia. Bachrach44 18:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Bachrach44 18:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. This is not an article, this is an expression of the desire to at some point write an article. Dxco 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten. There's scope for an article but this isn't really a useful starting point. Dlyons493 Talk 19:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing salvageable on this page, regardless of notability. The article can be started again when it’s ready to be a real encyclopedia article. ♠DanMS 21:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I am changing my vote to keep. Thanks to Fg2 for making a real stub out of it. ♠DanMS 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Archdiocese of Owerri is an actual archdiocese of the Catholic Church [3], but this is not much of an article. --Metropolitan90 23:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Real Archdiocese in Nigeria see [4]. Would vote to keep even decent stub. However, it is almost speediable at the moment under WP:CSD as a Category A1. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up. I put some things in, including category, name of archbishop, external link; Wikified a bit. Fg2 05:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fg2 has written a good little stub about the diocese. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Fg2's stub. Thanks for doing some dirty work for the team. Jacqui ★ 05:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good stub. -- DS1953 talk 21:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlynne Boyd[edit]

Hoax. The movies listed do not have anyone with the name of Ashlynn or Ashlynne or even Boyd in them. Also 0 google hits. Please kill it. It's close to a BJAODN since we have stuff like 2 full brothers 7 months apart! Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, haha, this is just bizarre. Devotchka 04:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. 3 Google hits for "Ashlynne Boyd" including 2 Wikipedia pages and one mirror see [5] shows lack of verification for a woman who is supposedly a famous actress. Capitalistroadster 04:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, looks like a hoax to me. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to BJAODN or the Uncyclopedia. Creative stuff. TECannon 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 69.119.119.178 should be banned for 1 year and all articles edited by that IP [6] should be reverted. Andrew 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, and investigate user's edits as per Andrew. User has 4 warnings and a block already, and it did not seem to fix the problem. MCB 00:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the user's record, I reported this to WP:VIP myself. MCB 00:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User was banned for 6 months earlier today. MCB 04:32, 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 redirect to Atlantis. – Alphax τεχ 14:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantas[edit]

Despite the name, this author identifies Atlantas as a lost continent in the Pacific. Original research. -- RHaworth 07:28, 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 redirected to Hialeah High School. Closing early, author gave permission to delete but redirect seems like a good alterntive. Friday (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Capers[edit]

This is an unsourced article about a high school talent show. It's currently unverifiable, however I think even with sources, it should be deleted for lack of notability. "Notability" is a dirty word to some, but the day that high school talent shows are encyclopedic is the day that Wikipedia is indeed an "indiscriminate collection of information". A tiny bit of it could be merged into the school article, but IMO there's no call for pages of information on this topic. Friday (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In my oppinion, articles this like make Wikipedia what it is. I think the article is very useful. It is not only a tradition at the school, but a long standing tradition in the city of Hialeah. This article should stay.
  • Merge- My Sister went to this high school and I went there for a month before we moved. I still live in the area, and I can tell you that outside of Hialeah High School, the talent show is UNKNOWN. Its not a tradition in the city of Hialeah, because Hialeah has two other schools serving it and students attending those schools don't know about Autum Capers (cause its a Hialeah High Tradition), so maybe its a tradition in the portion of Hialeah served by Hialeah High, and not in the portion served by Miami Springs and Hialeah-Miami Lakes High Schools. Autum Capers is just another school talent show that really has no meaning to anyone but its students and alumni. I lived in Hialeah for 10 years and didn't even know about it until my sister went to the school, and then forgot about it as soon as I moved. It's not worth of an entire article, but it is worth having its own section on the Hialeah High Page. PRueda29 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our article on Hialeah High School covers this at length (of anything, it could do with judicious pruning. This isn't worthy of coverage on its own as it is mainly of local interest. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this could do with pruning, but disagree that things only of local interest should not be included - it's great to have articles about local places. Trollderella 00:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Devotchka 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the high school, unless the amount of verifiable material on it becomes unwieldy. Right now, there's very little verifiable material that is not original research. Trollderella 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Im the author.There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia, on small things that people come searching for, I dont see what harm having a page about a pretty descriptive and comical talent show at a high school could bother someone. If i did a search for "the alliance of twelve" in Alias, i would find it, although there are dozens of people who dont watch Alias or care about. I just think articles like this are what make wikipedia a personal experience for people. Alexander Prieto--63.211.54.166 23:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Autumn Capers doesn't deserve a whole page. Alias is a TV program seen by millions of people around the world, Autumn Capers is an annual talent show no bigger than any other talent show, at any other high school in the US. It doesn't deserve an entire page all for itself as per WP:ISNOT. I DO think you should merge the information into the Hialeah High article, though, since its already there and it can be mentioned on there without objection.PRueda29 23:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why should an article be deleted just because people don't know about the event? Clearly, people do know about it and claim it to be a big event in the city. Just because you are ignorant and chose not to know about it doesn't mean you should keep others from learning about this event.
There's not need to insult others for their opinions. As for the article, it would benefit better from being merged with Hialeah High School; it'll still be mentioned, just not on its own page. The event isn't notable enough to be mentioned on its own page. PRueda29 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Place Comments here[edit]

  • Comment: I've left the author a note suggesting that they create a Wikicities page for their school. Friday (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This sums up the problems with the concept of notability. Autumn Capers is clearly notable to some of the people who go to Hialeah High School, the problem is that it is not verifiable to the rest of us. Trollderella 20:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Honestly, the event is huge in Hialeah High. It consumes like a whole week, and alumni come in to watch it and everything. Then Again, HML and Springs also have talent shows that are huge in their areas and tend to be a huge tradition at the schools, they're not all-consuming like autumn capers is at HHS, but that doesn't merit it its own page, just a nice long mention at the Hialeah High article. PRueda29 20:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly believe that a local activity which is of no material interest to anyone other than the people currently attending a single educaitonal institution has no real claim to being notable, and any entry about it is necessarily unencyclopaedic as it will be (a) substantially unverifiable to anyone but the particiapnts and (b) highly likely to change with time. Some local institutions spread (Rugby football), some become notable due to their longevity (Eton Wall Game), some exert an influence out of all proportion to their scale (Cambridge Footlights). But WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. There has to be some kind of bar to entry. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that things should be excluded because of which group of people is interested in it. We should exclude most of this material because it is unverifiable, not because of who or how many people are interested in it. Trollderella 00:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAuthor again.honestly at this point, since it is on the hialeah high page, i would suggest this page be deleted.Alexander Prieto--63.211.54.166 23:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment WIKIPEDIA DRAMA!!!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 send to BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axe of Nopolt[edit]

Non-notable. Not even sure if it really exists. Googling shows up with 11 results, all duplicates.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Quite good, looks plausible at face value :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, so it was. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:16, 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 05:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Planet[edit]

An article about a band that does not show up on Allmusic and apparently doesn't meet the WP:Music guidelines. -- Captain Disdain 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Going by their web site, they have no albums. (Note: There was some weird connection between the R30 article and this. It listed their URL for no apparent reason.) --DavidConrad 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:21, 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bath impact[edit]

A great newspaper - but doesn't need it's own page... A section on "Student Media" on Uni of Bath could include Impact + CTV + URB. --Mintchocicecream 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nn, agree with above. Dxco 06:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a student at Bath. Impact is a free student newspaper, and while it's OK reading if you're bored it's no more notable than the newsletter at a fairly large company. Its readership is unmeasurable as it's given out free. Someone on the talk page pointed out that some student newspapers have venerable histories: well, Impact doesn't as far as I know. --Last Malthusian 10:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The school has enough of a history that the paper might be notable, though there's no way to tell from the current stub or from the paper's webpage. If kept, move to Bath Impact. I could also get on board with a Merge to University of Bath. -Colin Kimbrell 03:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, at best, Merge with University of Bath. It's only a free student newspaper, for crying out loud. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 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.

FROM EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:

I'm glad you think the publication I have spent 9 months (and my predecessors have spent 5 years) creating, is pointless. But what I believe to be more pointless is your obvious glorification of your own self importance over a harmless article on this very sucessful publication.

Thank You

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of Coconut Oil[edit]

POV, promotional, possible copyvio. A proper article already exists at Coconut oil. Merge/redirect useful content (if any); otherwise, delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge article has some cited info --anetode¹ ² ³ 18:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV, cites and notes unaccepted quak/fringe pseudomedicine. Dxco 19:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: --Bhadani 12:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Useful contents may be used in the article Coconut oil. --Bhadani 12:16, 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 05:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Ann (B.A.) McBride[edit]

Although a producer for a national radio show, she is definitely not notable enough for Wikipedia. The article barely focuses on McBride outside of the Don and Mike Show. --Kevin McManus 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. If someone thinks there is enough information about her, she can be added to the Don and Mike page. - Kevin McManus 20:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Seems more like an excuse to interject her 'sex life'. Not very useful. PJM 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Salacious trivia. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:54, 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 and send to BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackness Scale[edit]

Original research. But funny; if one must create nonsense articles then this is the way to go :). Thue | talk 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy As per nom. PJM 19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Heh. NN "theory", NN creator. Devotchka 19:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom. Funny as heck :) Dxco 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 19:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, unverifiable, hoax, joke, and not funny. TheMadBaron 19:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But it is funny.  BD2412 talk 20:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Not BJAODN material in my view. Created by someone with username similar to name of person creating with inventing this in 2005. If I'm not mistaken, there is an actual blackness scale (other than low values of "albedo") used by artists or physicists or somebody, but it's not related to skin color nor stereotypical behavior. If found, its article won't need to have this joke in its edit history. 205.247.102.130 20:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in agreement with TheMadBaron. Ze miguel 21:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Queen of England would be way to the bottom left. Delete. A2Kafir 21:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. Quality spoof of Political Compass :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Pretty good stuff. Trying to figure our where Grace Jones, Vanilla Ice, George Hamilton and Condi Rice would fit.-PlainSight 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am S. M. Ransom, And I do hope that none delete my article. I am working on more for it as we speak and will make it larger. The test to determine position is being refined by my colleagues.

  • BJAODN Funny as f*ck.--RicardoC 20:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save It S.M.Ransom - sayer of truths
  • Save It Mike Irene - The best thing ever.
  • Save It Robert Shingledecker - This is amazingly funny, please save it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boards.us[edit]

Delete. Another non-notable BBS. By the statement on the page, has only 450 members as of October 2005. ♠DanMS 04:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. The web is awash with endless fields of forums. Dxco 06:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with boards.ie, its far, far, far larger parent site. --Kiand 12:11, 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 07:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Arnold[edit]

NN - being married to a soap actor and being a father of six doesn't make someone notable enough to warrant an entry. Delete CLW 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable, or at least the article does not establish notability. Half of the article (one sentence!) is about his wife. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fails WP:BIO--Reflex Reaction 17:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:BIO. A Google search for "Bob Arnold" June Brown came up with little see [7]. May even be WP:V problems as there seems to be few online sources for a relationship outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TECannon 07:48, 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 Um....no consensus I guess. As long as it is not gonna be deleted. There appears to be an disagreement on which page to redirect to, so I'll leave that to the article's talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolter[edit]

  • Abstain as nominator -- maybe someone cares about this; I just don't want it to slide into cold-dark-matter-dom unchallenged. --Trovatore 04:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Warhammer 40,000; no apparent reason to give it independent treatment. Postdlf 04:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: Merge and redirect to List of fictional weapons. Deltabeignet 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Warhammer 40,000. Weapons in this universe would be better treated within the main article rather than making those interested in the subject go to many separate pages for each weapon. ♠DanMS 04:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WH40K. I don't think there's anything relevant to merge, here; this is just a very short description of a single weapon from a game that has a veritable arsenal of them. -- Captain Disdain 05:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The author could consider noting this weapon in the main article if it seems appropriate, but this defnitely should not have it's own page. Dxco 06:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too minor a 40K concept to rate a mention on the main page. If you're fanatical about making it into a redirect, redirect it to Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine Equipment and Weaponry, as there is a decent-sized paragraph on bolt-weapons there. Or to Warhammer 40,000 Imperial Guard Equipment and Weaponry, as its mentioned there as well. Or somewhere else, just anywhere but the main Warhammer 40,000 page. Too many 40K concepts redirect there, and there's no context in the article for them. Saberwyn 07:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine Equipment and Weaponry. There's a much more (over)detailed description there anyway. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:FICT (appears to be little info to merge) Radiant_>|< 00:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect - a "bolter" is a concept in naval aviation denoting a missed approach to an aircraft carrier - I'll write at least a stub on it. FCYTravis 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (6d, 1k, 1a). - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brenco[edit]

As far as I can tell, this article is entirely fabricated. Anyone know any different? - Squibix 00:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain: Google gives no hits for 'Brenco'+'Brennan Roy' or 'Brenco'+'United Household Products', in either English or Russian; and yet I can't see any reason why someone would come up with such a boring hoax. I'm ready to say delete if nobody comes up with any proof of this company's existance and notability soon.
Oops, the above was not signed by me. - Squibix 01:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google hits, so at the very least unverifiable. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable unless someone comes up with some evidence before this listing runs out. It does seem strange that someone would fabricate something like this, but reasons can be imagined (e.g. testing how Wikipedia handles plausible hoaxes). Alternatively it could be a reference to a fictional company from some really obscure economic thriller, or something... :/ — Haeleth Talk 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI actually came across this company on the web before in the 90's, apparently before it was aquired, it did have it's own website. This was definitly a real company. KeepHello people, I am the article's author. Yes I've tried google too, unsucessful. This is a real company. I can prove it. There was a book used for a project i did last year on turkmenistan. It was called "turkmenistan" and it was published in 2005. I am not sure what publishing company is but this should help the google searches. I read about a company founded by a man with a dream to rebuild a country. That company was brenco and that man was brennan roy. I did find a site about the company a few months ago while i was doing the report but apparently it was shut down. Please keep trying this company deserves recognition. I don't want you to go out your way to find this book, but if you ever come across a book titled "Turkmenistan" please see that it contains information about this company. I strongly appreciate this thank you.

  • Delete per nom. Note that the two keep votes are from the same user. --JJay 13:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You suck JJay BPRoy 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)User:BPRoy[reply]

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

Bria Forums[edit]

Non-notable Star Wars forum --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 06:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is actually a subforum, a category within the official Star Wars: Galaxies forum 1. I'm against forum articles on general principles, though I guess you could make a case for a Merge and Redirect to Star Wars: Galaxies Forum or something similar if you were so inclined. -Colin Kimbrell 04:30, 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 no vote recorded, deleted as broken redirect. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brukout[edit]

Likely neologism. Google Brukout Jamaica = ~1300 hits Incorrectly tagged as speedy. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:51, 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 07:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bx thugz[edit]

Non-notable band: no Allmusic.com entry, no Google hits for "Bx thugz", albums likely self produced/distributed --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:57, 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 as nomination was withdrawn. FCYTravis 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Fight This Feeling[edit]

Sorry song not important BeteNoir 22:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently song was a #1 hit, and meets notability criteria. Withdrawing afd. BeteNoir 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep #1 hit for REO Speedwagon in 1985. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tried to add some evidence of its notability, which was sadly lacking when nominated--considering it's on the soundtrack of a movie released in the US this month, 20+ years later, the song, as they say in show biz, 'has legs'. 24.17.48.241 05:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep number one hits. Jacqui ★ 06:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've forgotten what I started fighting for. It's time to bring this ship in to the shore. --DavidConrad 09:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable #1 hit song. FCYTravis 01:51, 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 07:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie nusance[edit]

not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 18:10, 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 07:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Leo[edit]

Non-notable. delete UtherSRG (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom. PJM 17:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Devotchka 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insignificant. Punkmorten 20:40, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Thornham[edit]

No assertion of notability. Google returns 64 hits only [8]. It is not clear whether he has achieved anything memorable. Edcolins 19:43, 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 speedy delete as per WP:CSD A6. Hall Monitor 18:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sheehan's problem[edit]

Blatant POV fork/essay. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a BigDaddy sock, there never was an article, thus speedy the damn thing--152.163.100.134 01:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah to heck, throw away the truth. Delete it as speedily as possible. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't even be a need to debate this one.
  • Delete. I marked it for speedy, but the tag was taken off, apparently. I'm still figuring this Wikipedia thing out: did I do something wrong? Are only admins supposed to add speedy delete tags? - Squibix 01:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all, anybody can add. But you justified the speedy under the criteria for "patent nonsense," which it was at the time you added the tag, only because someone had edited it to read "this was created by a BigDaddy sockpuppet." The initial entry, which I restored, doesn't fit the "patent nonsense" speedy criteria (it's understandable -- just horribly biased), or really any other that I could determine. So that means it goes here to AFD. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He spammed the thing into two or three other articles, it's trolling at best, vandalism at worst, 68.122.180.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)--152.163.100.134 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That makes sense, thanks. - Squibix 01:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_BigDaddy777--152.163.100.134 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But wait! Know that if you delete or vandalize this, you are throwing away the truth. Gasp! Devotchka 01:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Not a speedy though. --JJay 02:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. 23skidoo 03:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete characteristic of a big daddy sockpuppet an non notable-Dakota 03:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and as vandalism. The threat is a pretty good indication that this person will not be contributing articles that are in the spirit of Wikipedia. --Jacqui ★ 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vandalism, blatant POV violations, ranting. Sounds like something from Rush Limbaugh.
  • Delete. What I love is that BigDaddy is becoming a verb. lol --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unredeemably POV. --Clay Collier 07:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do I really need to give a reason? —Brim 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong delete. This entire article is nothing but a personal insult at Cindy Sheehan. Wikipedia is not a forum for redneck conservative xenophobic warmongers. — JIP | Talk 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable personal attack. Is that not a Speedy criterion? - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy or Delete Personal attack POV garbage. Stu 12:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just speedy delete this one. Marskell 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, what a horrible problem. Speedy Delete --Optichan 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- I looked all through the criteria and most of them are near misses, but A6 seems to fit: "Articles which serve no purpose but to disparage their subject." Maybe a little loose. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is no point in attempting to determine the what the creator's ulterior motives were here. The title and content of this article qualify it for speedy deletion as an attack page as it is. Hall Monitor 18:47, 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 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado State University-Pueblo, Music Department[edit]

Advertisement for a college music department. WP:NOT advertising: delete RJH 21:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrap in tin foil, microwave, then feed to a goat. Delete all ads. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way I can beat J.O.G.'s suggestion. Grutness...wha? 09:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom (& JOG, 'natch). Pete.Hurd 22:17, 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 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Meese[edit]

Hoax. Googling "'Crazy Meese' 'Jake Arnott'", "'Crazy Meese' 'Little White Man'", etc show nothing. Attention drawn to this article via link in Bellamy by possible vandal.

195.92.168.165 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be deleted. It is maybe not completely true but people can see that and its fun and amusing. Maybe people who dont like it could just censor the bits they dont like. (Unsigned comment from same IP that created original article, User:195.93.21.70)

  • (Disclaimer: I'm the person who originally put this in AfD). I don't think it's at all true, personally :) Liking it or not is irrelevant; it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Even if rewritten to be more obviously humorous, it still wouldn't be suitable. We could have a long debate about why "humour" articles on Wikipedia are a bad idea, but that's probably already been done countless times before. 195.92.168.176 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Disclaimer: I'm the person who originally put this on Wikipedia). The material in the article is all true, if a little (and occasionally a lot) exaggerated : ) However, having read the sections on verifiability, in particular parts addressing original research, as well as notability and music guidelines, I think perhaps this should be taken off of Wikipedia. I will keep it in my own files at home until such a time as the Crazy Meese meet the guidelines and have some verifiability. Fans, just a few more short years to wait if all goes well!
  • delete as per Howcheng, note: article also include egregious (mis)use of "utilize", be gone! Pete.Hurd 22:19, 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 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darkstaff[edit]

Non-canonical and non-notable Star Wars fanfic stuff. -- Captain Disdain 02:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 02:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we really was "one of the most powerful of all sith," than he'd probably be notable, but there's no evidence he's a real Star Wars character. Just FYI, there is an actual Darkstaff in Star Wars, but it's an artifact, not an individual -LtNOWIS 03:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will allow that good old geek in me to surface enough to say simply "Yeah, I know". Now if you'll excuse me, I will brutally beat it back into its box. =) -- Captain Disdain 03:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable no star wars character-Dakota 04:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Star Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantecubed (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 October 2005
    • Well, I have no objection redirecting it (personally, I don't think it's really notable enough; for example, a Google search on "darkstaff" appears to give far more results for the EverQuest NPC than anything Star Wars related...), but if we're gonna do that, it should be redirected to List of minor Sith characters, as that article actually mentions "Darkstaff". Star Wars does not. -- Captain Disdain 05:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination, but no redirect. Redirecting a very minor topic to the 'top page' in a genre or field is just a pain for later editers, expecially if the minor topic has no hope of ever being mentioned in the target article. Saberwyn 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, Mr. Darkstaff. --Optichan 15:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fanfic...--Isotope23 21:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom KnowledgeOfSelf 01:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above reasons. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:25, 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.
Genb2004 (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2013 (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. Madchester 16:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Wong[edit]

Possible vanity, non notable anyway. --Missmarple 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is notable because David Wong is both an attorney and classical pianist. David Wong is like a Condoleezza Rice -- who is also a concert pianist in addition to being the current Secretary of State. That's notable. It also seems that if this article is deleted, the article on Rosa Parks should also be deleted, because both Rosa Parks and David Wong object to racial discrimination and took strong personal stands against it. They are historical figures. 20:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • My problem is not just the vanity article itself, but the disengenuous attempt to "save" the page with convoluted, illogical statements like those above. Condoleezza Rice is notable purely as the Secretary of State of the United States, not as a pianist. David Wong holds which position in the U.S. government? Didn't think so. What's irritating is that such illogic is so insipid, yet the writer's audacity for writing it is even more so. Also, the claim that "if this article is deleted, then the article on Rosa Parks should also be deleted" could only logically be based on the premise that David Wong is more important than Rosa Parks...not only is this extreme vanity, but David Wong or a supporter deliberately chose a "racial icon", and the implication that he is at least as important as Rosa Parks because he "took a strong stand against discrimination" suggests that, in fact, Wong manufactured the discrimination claim to gain attention. I'm just sorry that weaker people are unable to stand up to these type of insidious attacks...doing evil in the pretext of doing good.Ryoung122 07:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think it is logical to assume David Wong thinks he is more important than Rosa Parks. Logically, it is possible that they are not mutually orthogonal. In any event, there is a case at the Dept. of Education San Francisco Office that verifies there is indeed a complaint which existed prior to the deletion of this article. Therefore, I don't think the discrimination complaint was manufactured just to draw attention to himself in order to save the article. I agree with Ryoung's comments below that we shouldn't be attacking those who are trying to save this article, but rather look at the reasoning, content of what everyone is saying, including those who want this article deleted. Jamesw9 18:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this guy thinks he is more important than Rosa Parks and Condoleezza Rice, then clearly he has a "God complex." Maybe this has driven him to success in two fields, but one has to wonder if the discrimination claim was an attempt to gain attention for himself (and thus may have never happened). Also, it's not notable that Person X graduated from school and thanked his teachers.Ryoung122 21:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think Wong thinks he is more important than Rosa Parks or Condoleezza Rice, but the argument is that he is notable because he is both an attorney and a distinguished classical pianist, and that would be different from allowing an article about a person who likes golf, fishing, and what have you. I do wonder about the discrimination claim though because I don't believe racial discrimination still occurs. Can anyone follow up with the Department of Education to verify there was an actual complaint filed and can we have more facts? Jamesw9 21:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course racial discrimination still occurs, but that doesn't make Wong notable as a musician, nor does being discriminated against, by itself, make someone a historical figure. TECannon 06:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable as a musician with next concert being in 2008. Allmusic.com has an article on a David Wong but that artist is a vocalist. Has played the occasional concert see [9] but doesn't seem to meet WP:music. Started practising as an attorney last year so not notable in that field either. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. Clearly a vanity page. Great quote from page: "The controversy surrounding Mr. Wong is his age. He is 30, but looks 16."Dxco 06:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true that David Wong's next concert is in 2008. If you do a google search he is also playing in a concert this Sunday in Berkeley, CA. He meets WP:music because he went on an international concert tour in Germany in 1999.

  • Save Notable. David Wong's CD on Amazon has received almost 45 reviews, and almost all of them are positive. Plus, the tour in Germany should count for something. I don't believe allmusic.com should be the definitive guide to who is a notable artist and who is not. For example, allmusic.com does not contain a listing for Steve Swayne, SS King, or Natalie Merchant. Jamesw9 06:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have articles on them? Alphax τεχ 07:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no, and yes (but Natalie Merchant fronted 10,000 Maniacs and she actually is on allmusic.com). TECannon 14:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Most of the article is pure vanity, and what is fact, is also non-notable. Peruvianllama 07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TECannon 14:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save meets criteria for notable in WP:music Genb2004 4:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Save If this article gets deleted, you will also have to delete Jon Nakamatsu, Lang Lang, and Yundi Li. Also the comments here arguing for deletion seem to refer to older articles about David Wong, making the recommendation to delete obsolete. HBgoodrich 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Nakamatsu, Lang Lang, and Yundi Li are actually more notable, even if they didn't manage to make the stock price triple at the company where they temped. Bwithh 04:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The three pianists you have mentioned have absolutely nothing in common with David Wong except the fact that they're all Asian. Jon Nakamatsu and Yundi Li have both won a very important piano competition and Lang Lang has released several CDs, DVDs, is currently touring around the world etc. So I can't agree with your comment at all, it's just not relevant. --Missmarple 13:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save I don't see any mention of David Wong's age in the article. Therefore, the other recommendations for deletion seem to be based upon prior recommendations of deletion so those recommendations have to be discarded given that the prior recommendation rested on the fact there was a mention about Wong's age and now there is no mention.(preceding unsigned comment by 67.188.171.144 (talk · contribs) 14:06, 28 October 2005)
    • Comment. Looking through the history of this page, I notice that 67.188.171.144, who voted for 'save' above, had first added their comment as a continuation of HBgoodrich's comment. If you are the same person as HBgoodrich, please do not vote twice. On a possibly related note, it's worth mentioning that both HBgoodrich and [[User::Genb2004|Genb2004]] had no contributions, prior to casting their votes for 'save'. Something feels fishy. --Peruvianllama 18:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save Meets criteria for notable in WP:music. It's possible 67.188.171.144 realized he shouldn't modify HBGoodrich's comments. On the other hand, Peruvianllama's concern should be given some consideration. 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by 24.4.134.33 (talk · contribs))
  • Delete Who is David Wong anyway? I'm so tired of him. Jimboy0 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Jimboy0 doesn't seem to have any contributions, prior to casting his vote for 'delete'. Using Preuvianllama's logic, if a discount factor is applied to Genb2004 and HBgoodrich, we should also disregard Jimboy0. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.4.134.33 (talk · contribs))
    • Comment. User 24.4.134.33 doesn't show any contributions other than the David Wong vote to save. This appears to be an organized attempt to vote-rig Wikipedia. So now we have three different unveried "save" votes from users without an ID and no evidence of existence before the David Wong deletion controversy.
    • Comment. Under the previous commentator's logic, we should also disregard Ryoung122. This appears to be an an organized attempt to vote-rig Wikipedia in both directions. It's probably best to look at the SUBSTANCE of what everyone is saying before we decide to delete or keep. Jamesw9 21:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT User Jamew9 is USING SMOKE AND MIRRORS. NOTE THAT I ONLY VOTED ONCE, NOT TWICE. ALSO, I CLEARLY HAD AN ID MONTHS AGO, NOT STARTING THE SAME DAY THE ATTEMPT TO "SAVE" OR "DELETE" THE ARTICLE STARTED. THUS, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT I TRIED TO VOTE-RIG ANYTHING, WHILE THERE'S CLEAR EVIDENCE OF ATTEMPTED VOTE-RIGGING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. ALSO OBSCENE IS THAT ATTEMPTS TO SAVE THE ARTICLE HAVE AMOUNTED TO PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST IT, RATHER THAN DEBATING THE ACTUAL MERITS OF THE ARTICLE ITSELF. THAT ALONE IS ENOUGH TO RAISE RED FLAGS.Ryoung122 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We should disregard Ryoung122 because he is yelling at us with capital letters. Jamesw9 18:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading this again, I noticed that not only did Jamesw9 post several messages (not in itself a problem, but they all tried to use illogical persuasion, such as "why are you still not convinced" (a red herring gives no reason to save) and "looks like vote-rigging in both directions". But check again, we find that user Jamesw9 had no verifiable ID before the voting began, whereas my ID went back to at least Feb 2005. Hmmm.....so people, think for yourselves, I think I've said enough. If that's not enough to expose a fraudulent attempt to vote-rig Wikipedia to save a vanity article, then fool you twice, shame on you.Ryoung122 07:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jimboy0 is proof of vote-rigging in both directions. I don't see any history for him. And even if you've got a history, I don't think it matters. You could be 10 or 1000 years old, it's the substance or merit of what you say that counts. Jamesw9 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it could use some editing to remove unverified attack content CarbonCopy 19:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, delete posthaste. However, if he indeed did a national tour of Germany (and not just a few places), that would qualify him under WP:NMG #2. It must be noted that most of the reviews on Amazon read like sockpuppets, or friends and family or something. He's probably a good pianist and a nice person, but still not that notable. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable vanity case. --Madchester 00:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. Trollderella 00:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is possibly the most disturbing case of seriously self-regarding vanity bio posting I've seen. The Amazon reviews for this guy's CD are full of obvious sock puppet reviews (all 5 star and often weirdly fawning in a slightly extreme way, except a few one star reviews from people who think/know something weird is going on). There also seems to be an attempt at sockpuppetry in influencing this review. Besides that, I also find the claims for notability completely unconvincing, and definitely not worthy of wikipedia. If somehow it is decided the article is kept, the bio should be cut down drastically, to one or two lines Bwithh 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Why do you find the claims for notability unconvincing? According to the guidelines set out by Wikipedia, Wong meets them. His international tour in Germany and feature in Keyboard Musician. Jamesw9 02:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does he get rid of people's parking tickets while he's putting out CDs? Sounds fairly self-aggrandizing, WP:MUSIC is in doubt with WP:VANITY lurking about, and from what this article sounds like, it's a WP:VANITY case. Karmafist 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. -PlainSight 03:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Wong is like a Condolezza Rice. No, he isn't. Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that being an attorney and a pianist is a cause for notability. Typically one would need to be wealthy in order to be either. Therefore one might readily be able to aquire the training for the other. En plus, would someone be notable if they were both a Teacher and Guitar player? I think not. There appears nothing in this article to indicate encyclopedic merit. Marcus22 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. The barrier to entry to become an attorney and a classical pianist is a lot greater than guitar playing and teaching. Therefore these two comparisons are not equivalent. Jamesw9 18:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Marcus22 has a good argument that teachers and guitarists are common. If the guitarist wins a state-wide competition, then the common argument is defeated or if the teacher wins a state-wide competition for teaching could also defeat the argument too. If david won a state wide piano competition then that might defeat the common argument. Asian Pacific Islanders represented 49% of San Francisco's school system in 2005, surely Marcus22, ryoung122, TECcannon, and MissMarple can easily name some meritorious Asian replacements for David because their arguments built on top of a lack of novelty and an abundance of substitutes? They should simply name a few specific names and justify why those replacements subsume David's published contribution to society. I've been a substitute teacher before and I don't feel that being a teacher in any way diminishes the something else just because I know a lot of people teach.
The danger I see in enforcing the highest standard of notability is that it is a blunt censorship instrument that can be used to censor the early references to any new publication regardless of merit, delete young artists, and delete new referenced publications are starting to become notable. Arguably Time Magazine, Newsweek, and tabloid shows like Inside Edition, provide timely content at the expense of enforcing a looser checking standard than a refereed journal such as Nature or JAMA. I do not think we need to delete everything Matt Drudge blogged before Monica-gate because anyone could make the argument he was less notable when I first learned of it. The word blogged seemed like a good candidate for deletion because that was not a very notable word to me when I first learned it. I think notability rises and falls too quickly for an encyclopedia to track. If an author dies, does he become less worthy of a historical record? I think relying upon the references of publicized works is a much better standard. If the author, artist, comprose, or inventor has any published works that might have artistic, culturally, or other redeeming social value, I say let the readers decide for themselves.
The alternative is to say that people like 'ryoung122' will improve my Wikipedia searches because 'ryoung122' can point to a more relevant artist to my search criteria in Wikipedia. If I am searching for a list of Hispanic civil rights figures who have persevered, I certainly don't need ryoung122 limiting my search to Rosa Parks when I'm looking for a less frequently cited person like Cesar Chavez. If I am searching for a recent list of Asian civil rights figures fighting the good fight, I am not expecting Missmarple, ryoung122, or TECcannon to offer better credentials or point to bigger folk heroes in the Asian American community. I personally believe David Wong was a short yellow musician being oppressed by elite establishment big shots who denied him the opportunity to rent a pearly white concert hall. Instead of suffering in silence like many angry Asian men, I almost admire that he persevered and became an attorney instead of a street performing musician with a picket sign. If David Wong is really not that notable, then why is it so important that his work needs to be censored in its entirety for lack of obscenity. I say if the argument is vanity then I recommend deleting any vain superlative adjective and allow the remnant truth to set us free. I am convinced that his lifelong battle with censorship is notable not because of his published works but on the basis of these public requests to delete him instead of limiting the discussion to what ought to be censored. Any request to delete in entirety without citing a search for a more meritorious replacement should be scrutinized as ignorant. If someone can name a more prominent Asian pianist and lawyer that subsumes all of David's contribution to society, I think we can replace David with another name but who are these shadowy figures who argue David should be replaced with a black hole? I challenge them to replace David on the merits and publish their full names and cities where they reside. I personally feel our society might be better off if we encouraged people to toil as patiently as David has behind the scenes to overcome a lifelong battle with censorship instead having to selectively celebrate the notoriety of the most visible act of civil disobedience. (preceding unsigned comment by 67.174.226.42 (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Wow, what a passionate and insightful argument. Yet, I still can't change my mind and still vote delete. did you write some of the reviews on Amazon.com too? Bwithh 04:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • COMMENT. First, in regards to the above "impassioned plea." If you look at the vanity page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page we see Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met, might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist. The popular radio humorist, Garrison Keillor has a theory that "everyone has a story to tell", and this may very well be true. Still, Wikipedia is not meant to be the place where all stories get told. That you know so much about David Wong strongly suggests you are related to him, a friend, or perhaps David himself. As it says from the vanity page, there should be a proof of neutral interest. Writing articles about oneself or someone you know is NOT NEUTRAL INTEREST. As you said, "personally believe..." You're taking it personally, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Such a tactic sets off the VANITY alarms. Even your comment about Cesar Chavez is offensive. Others chose to include Cesar, not Cesar himself or just a bunch of friends. Further, Cesar's work made a real-life difference for millions of hugely disadvantagely minorities working in the fields. David Wong's life of piano-playing already bespeaks a life of privilege, such as that any comparison to working in the fields is ludicrous. Millions of Americans have not even had the opportunity of piano lessons, yet we see complaints because David feels he is not being treated fairly. In actually, it appears that David is not treating others fairly, insisting on special privileged that others have not had. Such a statement as "I am convinced that his lifelong battle with censorship is notable not because of his published works but on the basis of these public requests to delete him instead of limiting the discussion to what ought to be censored" is a circular argument: you are saying that David Wong's article should not be deleted, because others are trying to delete it. Despite your very good grammar, what is scary is your total lack of perspective or understanding of logic. Or, maybe you undestand logic very well, but hope enough people perusing the message board will be deceived by your fallacies...in which case, that makes the statements all the worse, if the motive is to deceive.
Second, the above user 67.174.226.42, instead of making arguments about David Wong, commits other clever fallacies, such as if we delete David Wong, then we should replace him with another Asian-American. First, I don't believe in quotas...quotas are inherently racist. (And if you can only be inspired by other Asian-Americans, that's racist, too). David Wong comes from a background of privilege. Chinese-Americans have a standard of living, education, and even life expectancy that exceeds that of the average American, even white Americans. To claim that David Wong is another "Rosa Parks" really means the poster has issues of resent toward African-Americans, feeling that perhaps African-Americans are getting "special treatment, so we should too." (Did David Wong ever have to sit at the back of the bus? Did Rosa Parks promote herself, or did others promote her?) Well, it doesn't take much looking at the damage from Hurricane Katrina to see the difference. Perhaps you need to go on a community service tour of the US South, to gain some perspective from your ethno-centric little world.
But if I'm wrong and David Wong really is such a great "human rights activist," why not cite newspaper stories instead of committing non sequiturs.
As for me, I have known Chinese Christians all my life, yet the ones I know are not self-absorbed ego-maniacs,who put their self-promotion ahead of all else. If David Wong is deleted and he later acquires the stature of a star pianist, don't you think someone will notice and put him back on Wikipedia? The true measure of greatness is not what one thinks of oneself, but what others think of them. This is even more so for celebrities. And it's not just David Wong: to avoid the hype machine, I don't buy any popular music CD until I first hear the song and like it. Then I follow up to find out who sings the song, to make sure I'm not being brainwashed into buying the latest Ashlee Simpson junk.
The bottom line for me, however, is that not only is David Wong not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry, the campaign to add him to Wikipedia (and Amazon.com, for that matter) smacks of prickish self-absorption, misusing Wikipedia to advertise (to sell the CD and promote David Wong's attorney practice). Further, the Wong promoter's disdain of African-Americans smacks of racial arrogance.Ryoung122 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's contrast David Wong with another "Chinese rights activist":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Wu
Let's see...Harry Wu spent 19 years in jail; David Wong allegedly was denied the use of a concert hall. Which would you rather go through?Ryoung122 07:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Ryoung122. I did a comprehensive search of attorney pianists and I couldn't find any. I tried to find a Caucasian, Asian, Black, etc. Let's show the people on this list who want to save David Wong that he is a dime a dozen. Can anyone help me? If there is any way to delete David Wong, let's do it. I'm sick of hearing about him. I don't care if he meets WP:Music. I am not Ryoung122's sock puppet. There are articles in the Sing Tao Daily about David Wong's human rights fund raising activities but you can't trust it because the editorial standards are not as high as the New York Times. Jimboy0 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jimboy0 says: "If there is any way to delete David Wong, let's do it. I'm sick of hearing about him. I don't care if he meets WP:Music."
A very troubling attitude. CarbonCopy 18:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Pianist-Attorneys I did a search on google for attorney pianist and lawyer pianist, and lawyer + talent as a pianist actually seems to be a not uncommon combination - e.g. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Robert Miller + many more. That was based on a 10 min scan of the results. Didn't find any Asians though. perhaps its a conspiracy. Bwithh 07:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Sing Tao Daily has articles which indicate the entry for David Wong should be kept. HBgoodrich 07:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment from the nominator. It seems to me that some people are voting 'keep' because of some kind of racial reasons or something. It's not that there are no articles about Asian pianists (if we think of Wong's case, I don't know about other professions) - we have articles about Mei-Ting Sun, Yundi Li, Lang Lang, Jon Nakamatsu etc. just because they have achieved something important in their careers. If (or when) David Wong achieves something similar to them, he will have his article, too. But right now, he just doesn't deserve it! --Missmarple 13:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE David Wong will also need to be removed from being referred to on the pages Pianist and October 18, should this vote turn out to not go his way. Bwithh 15:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aren't the WP:Music criteria waaaaaay too lenient? I am not sure if simply going on any national concert tour is such a notable thing. and "major music media" needs to be defined more Bwithh 15:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. regardless, the whole article reads like nonsense and/or a vanity piece; neither of which are allowed anyway. --Madchester 17:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth afterwards. Textbook vanity article; my, the guy is very impressed with himself. (Note to the obvious sock-puppeter: the standard vote is "Keep", not "Save".) --Calton | Talk 00:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, non notable, not convinced by counter arguments. -- Solipsist 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets 2 criteria of WP:Music. Xoxo0 07:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppet...Xoxo0 is a probable internet sock puppet or meat puppet Bwithh 07:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't think of one good asian pianist, therefore David Wong can't be a good pianist. 8withh 08:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be quite a few "delete" votes without any prior history. Something feels fishy. Genb2004 08:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (In a part of the comment above now deleted by Genb2004, Genb2004 asked "What race is Bwithh?", implying that I may be racist) I'm of Chinese ethnicity, if you must know. the User account "8withh" was not created by me (as an examination of IP records will show, but was probably created to discredit me. This has now got tedious, as well as too creepy for me. Bwithh 12:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the David Wong page meets the criteria for Vanity because there are now no hyperlinks to his piano or law web site. My apologies to 8withh if she felt I was calling her racist. I don't think that was the implication, but still, if she felt that way, let's apologize and move on. It is fishy to me that we have people attacking other people rather than debating the merits or demerits of the page. Ryoung122 negativity is equally troubling, as well as the super passion of the people who want to save the page. Ryoung122 and Bwithh might be the same person, and should count as one. Either David Wong is notable and meets the criteria for WP:Music or he doesn't. If the WP:Music criteria is wrong, we need to change it and evaluate ALL articles about musicians on the new criteria, and delete all musicians who don't fit, including David Wong. Genb2004 16:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually if you read WP:MUSIC carefully, it indicates that it's a general set of guidelines, not a hard set of rules. Editors and contributors to Wikipedia follow these guidelines with discretion, making exceptions where they may be needed. --Madchester 16:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable because David Wong is probably the first Asian attorney-pianist. Hummer190 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. I think the admin referees are welcome to review undisclosed conflicts of interest that marcus22, ryoung122 and Bwithh neglected to disclose regarding their past, present, and future interests in other musician reputations or attorney reputations or that of other articles.

If litmus tests like the presence of any fallacy or contradiction can be used to delete content, we would either have to admit a lack of fairness by simply deleting the article about David or practice consistency by deleting many other "accepted" articles that possess the same issues as the article about David. marcus22, ryoung122, and Bwithh are conveniently silent about identifying sock puppet or comments in their favor that simply do not pass their own litmus tests.

I think if the "vanity" litmus test became the wildcard rule, we would not need a logical exception to review Hans Boepple who is chairing a department with some absolutely amazing credentials that scream vanity to any tenure reviewer at any university in the US. If David lacked a JD and was practicing law, I think someone would have reported vanity on that by now. I welcome ryoung122, marcus22, and Bwithh want to explain what happens when I apply their own vanity test to the article about Mr. Boepple, I will. I arrive at the same overreaching decision--DELETE. There seems to be a lack of balance, neutrality, and objectivity in the standards they are proposing. I want anyone to justify the declaring the position of a music chair with the "gravity" of his academic credentials. I hope has a good justification for participating in any tenure granting decisions and what kinds of credentials to the candidates have versus the reviewer or those might seem vain too.

I think if the information about David is available elsewhere then we can safely assume the censors want to single out this rated G article for other reasons. Even by pre-1991 noncommercial internet ettiquette, I do not see sponsorship branding, prices posted, binding offers to sell, credit card solicitations, no mention of his marital status, or dates of availability. The article appears to be factual, balanced, and fair which is a standard of objectivity that seems to exceed many other articles I have read. It appears the delete camp has failed so far in its bid to nominate a substitute for David thus the need to go ad hominem. There is a giant gap between proving that the article expresses David in a factually favorable light due versus proving a clear and present danger and national security harm by suppressing article about David. I fail to see any non-circular foundational argument for those wanting deletion given any established criteria of prior restraint for deleting this article now or pre-1991. At least not a long convoluted criteria that would save Mr. Boepple's article.

Toyotaboy ruled in favor of David because the advocates of delete have failed to bring arguments rising to the standards of prior restraint or substitution. Every argument submitted so far for delete can be used to go after established articles.

67.174.226.42 16:39, 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 consensus. (5m, 6d) - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiating Functions[edit]

I'm fairly positive this article is identical in material to the article Calculus with polynomials, so I move that it be deleted. If I'm missing something important, don't hesitate to let me know. In the discussion, put Delete if you agree and Keep if you don't. Comments are also welcome. - ElAmericano 00:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a while since I did calculus at school. While I am prepared to accept that the article being considered for deletion covers the same ground as Calculus with polynomials I would suggest that it is beter expressed for those of us who are a little rusty. I suggest a merge or at the very least some attempt to include material for the layperson in Calculus with polynomials.--AYArktos (Talk) 00:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the article is just a proof that the polynomial power rule works. It doesn't explain anything about calculus. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (I was around, but not very active, before I registered), so I'm not sure, but is it Wikipedia habit to put mathematical proof for laymen in articles? If so, I will agree with you. - ElAmericano 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I hadn't done an afd/vfd before and thought you just put {{VfD}} at the top of the page and followed the link here. Should I go ahead and fix it, or would that mess things up? - ElAmericano 15:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless someone's willing to do some serious cleanup. It has essentially no formatting right now; in my book that's grounds for deletion in itself, in an article that long. --Trovatore 05:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete inappropriate redunancy. we're not a textbook. the important facts about differentiation can already be found elsewhere. -Lethe | Talk 06:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after further cleanup to Calculus with polynomials. The only part of the proof that I suspect is the use of the binomial theorem. If that's legit, we should keep it. Gazpacho 06:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the proof is basically fine; the problem is that it's presented in essentially stream-of-consciousness form, and contains nonsense assertions like "Differentiating is the differentiation quotient in one point". If you want to add the proof to Calculus with polynomials, I have no objection to that, provided it's rewritten to have some logical structure. --Trovatore 06:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be renamed proof of the power rule in differentiation and get a complete rewrite. Unless anybody is willing to do the work, this article should be deleted or redirected. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The page Derivative (examples) shows differentiation from first principles already. It may be useful to move the proof there. The other page Calculus with polynomials is also a bit of a mess. The paragraph on 'Formal Diffentiation' seems out of place, and not at all well explained.Mattopia 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with moving the proof to derivative (examples). That one is a sweet elementary article showing several very concrete examples, and does not need this proof which does not add much value in understanding the derivative for novices beyond what already is in derivative (examples). I agree that the calculus with polynomials article is a mess, that might not hurt being turned into a redirect to derivative (examples) as well (without copying any of the info). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:11, 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 07:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DVD in my pants[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable website - no encyclopedic content. No google links,no archive,low Alexa. Starting to spread over many film articles' external links (1). PTSE 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Devotchka 01:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete growing web communities, and block linkspam. — brighterorange (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Excellent and informative site, but spam nonetheless, and not notable enough to have a page on wikipedia. The Wookieepedian 03:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteSpam-Dakota 04:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I followed a link to the Band of Brothers review after it was posted on that article. I was not aware of this link spamming. It was a nice site, but I've seen nothing to establish notability. Cookiecaper 06:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising and vanity. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by RHaworth. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian god of rice and John Percy[edit]

  • John Percy was not the Egyptian God of Rice. Hoax. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These articles were good for a laugh, but are they even worthy of AfD? --timc | Talk 15:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, "hoax" is not a speedy criterion, so yes, AFD it is. Besides the author removed the speedy tags. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this user's Victorian carpenters, LVCA and Royal_carpentry_loophole 'articles', which I marked for Speedy Delete. Also the nonsense added (and since reverted) from Horncastle. I think this is vandalism rather than a hoax, but if we need to debate it, then I go for Delete. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Strange. Double-checked google but got no good matches on "John percy" "god of rice", obviously. :) — RJH 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Nice joke Prashanthns 16:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BJAODN, funny though --Reflex Reaction 17:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. Perhaps the author might consider Uncyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


All articles now deleted by RHaworth as patent nonsense. This AfD can therefore be closed. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 09:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that. Technically, "patent nonsense" means things which have absolutely no coherency and no meaning at all. But enough for technicalities, these things clearly ought to be deleted, so I won't protest too loudly. Closing the debate now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians (ethnic group)[edit]

POV,OR --Trovatore 05:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Our Roma article states that the term "Gypsy" is derived from Egyptian based on mistaken belief that the Roma come from that country. Useless as redirect as people are unlikely to search from that name. We do not currently have an article on Egyptian referring to the people of Egypt by the way. Capitalistroadster 06:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm not convinced that this term was/is used as described, and moreover doubt that is was widespread in use both among the community and over time. Either way, at most this does not at all warrant it's own article. If it turns out it is notable, and not a one-off localized phrase, than the Roma article could mention it.Dxco 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the whole article seems to be written as an insult. — JIP | Talk 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mention this in the Roma article. —Brim 07:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this page is fully justified*. If you are aware of the situation in the balkans, then you would know why it is important that there is a page on this, for egsample there are plenty of Roma peoples in Kosovo that are calling themselves "Egyptians", as to avoid discrimination by the ethnic albanians, and serbs. if you knew anything, then you would know that there are no Egyptians (arab peoples) of the country Egypt in the balkans, but "Egyptians" are coming up on the cenuses of Kosovo and Montenegro. If you look on the wiki page of the republic of montengro, you will see in the demographics "Roma" & "Egyptians" in the same category, as some roma people prefer to call themselves as Egyptians in the hope of not being discriminated against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro. In the Balkans, this is very known. Do your research on this before you are so quick to ask for this page to be deleted. (preceding unsigned comment by 202.7.166.163 (talk • contribs) in multiple edits; the last was at 08:46, 28 October 2005)
  • Delete and Mention in the Roma article Prashanthns 09:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appeal to emotion, biased point of view, and apparently very recent development (FAD). At most, one sentence at Roma should suffice. Just because something is true doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic; what if we listed all 6.3 billion people alive on the planet?Ryoung122 21:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Mention in the Roma article (and in a proper article on Egyptians, should one be written) it would be much more relevant to have this topic actually lead to information about past and present inhabitants of Egypt. Also, I would actually be very surprised if zero ethnic Arabs resided in the Balkans. CarbonCopy 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worth one sentence in Roma. MCB 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth V. Lodal[edit]

non notability Melaen 22:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom., also arguably copyvio (says not in Discussion, but the source does not as far as I can see say public domain, maybe I'm missing something) - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE how is a the principal of the number one high school in america not notable? would it really kill wikipedia to have this information available? --69.255.6.163
  • Delete per nomination. No assertation of notability, and even if I could work out from the article which school 69.255.6.163 was referring to, could someone tell me how I could work out which of the untold thousands of American high schools is the 'number one'?
Also, considering the article's first incarnation could be taken as an attack page, and the article has been an on-and-off edit war for the past few days, leads me to question whether this copy-paste bio (even if it is not copywright) belongs here. No offense intended, but I have to side with the deleters. Saberwyn 07:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. TheMadBaron 09:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not copyvio IMO, but really a dumb article that wouldn't do the subject justice anyway 68.100.68.23 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia really going to be that much worse if this article stays? Isn't the point of the project to conveniently make information available for free? Why would this article be such a big problem? I would appreciate an answer, thanks! --69.255.6.163

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eman Laerton[edit]

Only plausible claim to notability is his web site, which we just deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was techinically no consensus (1 delete, 3 redirect, 1 transwiki), but I've been bold and redirected it to Pregnancy test. Robert T | @ | C 00:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ept[edit]

Why is it necessary to have an entire entry devoted to one bound morpheme? Delete. Devotchka 23:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ha, I thought this was for ept, the pregnancy test. I don't see how this could be expanded in any way and I don't see any other articles for individual morphemes. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, where it would find a loving home. Denni☯ 01:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really random, but how about an encyclopedic entry about EPT (Error-Proof Test) pregnancy kits in its place? This suggests that there's probably a host of information on that topic, instead. Jacqui ★ 06:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I think about it, failing the above, maybe a redirect to Pregnancy test would be appropriate. Jacqui ★ 06:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect sounds logical. Saberwyn 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ward[edit]

A local pastor who has just begun preaching. I don't believe that he is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Aecis 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable and not encyclopediac. He doesent get hit on Google Prashanthns 16:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wish him well, but NN. PJM 16:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, vanity FRS 16:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Best of luck with another vanity page elsewhere--Reflex Reaction 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. Being a minister is not inherently notable. MCB 01:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I did find him on Google, but NN. TECannon 08:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evil mathmo society[edit]

Nonsensical article, possibly vanity

  • Delete per nomination. Funny, but not encyclopedic. --timc | Talk 15:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. --Optichan 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. PJM 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as humorous but not encyclopedic. Devotchka 16:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom Prashanthns 16:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BJAODN --Reflex Reaction 17:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd vote to delete, but I'm afraid of being destroyed. Oh, to heck with it. Delete. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:58, 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 (5d, 1k).--Scimitar parley 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farrokh B. Malihi[edit]

Vanity. Ifnord 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hmm, 5 patents and 30 papers. If it can be verified then perhaps notable, and a keeper. Otherwise, nn-bio. --Kgf0 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Verified US Patent #4,921,629, which is cited by 36 later patents. IANA Patent Lawyer, so I can't speak to whether that's notable or not. However, if the article is kept, it is in serious need of cleanup, and right now it is somewhere between a blurb and a Curriculum Vitae, neither of which belong here. --Kgf0 19:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find two papers on google scholar [16]. Even with patents, he doesn't seem to involved with academia. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of my patents and published articles can be furnished upon request. Thanks for your interest. Farrokh B. Malihi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.23.2 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisted. No vote. Alphax τεχ 07:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems that the article has been written by the subject contrary to best pactice according to WP:VANITY. Further, it fails to meet our notability guidelines according to WP:BIO and needs sources. However, if Farrokh wants to create a user page, he is welcome to post his data on that. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Malihi is already listed at Modern Iranian scientists and engineers, that mention seems sufficient. (btw: patents at [17], published papers at [18]) --anetode¹ ² ³ 09:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it would appear that his name was entered on that list by 80.191.11.17 (talk · contribs), the creator of Farrokh B. Malihi, so this is none too reliable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nevertheless, with those links we now know what the precise claims being made are. They can be now be verified or disproven. — Haeleth Talk
  • Weak keep if the claims of the article can be verified; they're notable enough. Delete as unverifiable if they can't. The article having apparently been written by the subject is irrelevant: it may not be a good thing, and it means the claims should be checked more thoroughly than otherwise, but it's not grounds for deletion! — Haeleth Talk 13:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two papers on google scholar seem not to have been cited by anyone. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Outright vanity. Delete under A7 Prashanthns 16:49, 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 Speedy delete Original author blanked the page and requested deletion in the edit summary. Only other edit was to add the AfD template. --Allen3 talk 23:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire ass mid[edit]

This reads like nonsense but (ahem) my knowledge of illegal drugs is not enough to be sure. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete please this looks fake to me Yuckfoo 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete at best, this could be a neighborhoods nickname for some form of weed. More likely, it's complete bollucks. Dxco 19:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Devotchka 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with exceptional reworking content could go into some other drug article such as for marijuana if contributors to there feel it's worth of inclusion Nil Einne 14:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did some research and it does exist. Maybe it's too minor, but it's not just another street name. But it should be cleaned up or merged with the pot article.

I dunno.... the quotation is from urban dictionary. I don't know whether to trust it-- im no addict or dealah or anything but Iv never hearda this stuff.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Battle Game[edit]

The game is currently under construction/development. It could very well become notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, but we can only know that after it has been released on the market. Aecis 17:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Anville 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, advert. Best of luck to them, tho. Dxco 19:28, 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 07:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Earth Proclamation[edit]

This page is fancruft. It's not a major element of the game and has been discussed sufficiently in the game's article 209.232.147.200 19:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francophone Institute for Computer Science[edit]

I started to wikify this article until I realized that is was basically an ad. Although it is certainly possible to have an unbiased NPOV, non-advertisement, non-spam article on a university, this certainly isn't it. IMO, it needs to be either deleted or have all the text scrapped and entirely reworked. It is worth noting that as of right now, there are no pages that link to this page. --Bachrach44 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This is tough, as it is definitely a bit advert-like. But, I'm hoping it's obscure enough to hang out for a bit, in hopes of a proper rewrite. Dxco 06:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is another article that has serious problems, but might be worth saving and referring to cleanup with an eye toward countering systemic bias toward predominantly anglophone places and topics. TECannon 15:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we do not need to erase something to clean it really Yuckfoo 18:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable and will become a healthy part of wikipedia with a little (okay, a lot of) work. Helps address systemic bias. (I like yuckfoo's analogy, too.) :) Jacqui ★ 05:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freegrayslake.org[edit]

NN website, no Alexa listing. Delete. Owen× ☎ 19:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article admits only local notablility and that it serves a small group of students. Not big enough for Wikipedia. Cookiecaper 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cookiecaper and OwenX Nil Einne 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary (band)[edit]

NN band, fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria BrainyBroad 04:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Punkmorten 20:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:40, 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 speedy deleted (02:26, 29 October 2005 Geogre deleted "Homicidal B and Massacre" (Graffiti) ) - Mailer Diablo 07:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homicidal B and Massacre[edit]

Not notable, haven't released an album, fails WP:MUSIC Scott Davis Talk 13:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individualistic Punks[edit]

original research FrancisTyers 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. FrancisTyers 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can't really figure out what he's talking about. Who are these mysterious young adults from California? Are they a major movement or just a group of the article-writer's friends? (Sounds like the latter.) If someone knows more about this, I'd be persuaded to a "keep"; in the meantime, make mine "delete". Devotchka 16:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC--Reflex Reaction 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Despite the music stub, this doesn't seem to be related to music at all. Devotchka 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inane Tom Harrison (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TECannon 08:07, 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. (Doesn't require deletion, be bold and merge/redirect yourself! :) ) - Mailer Diablo 14:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Mort[edit]

Character is very minor, all data is available on The Dark Tower (series) -- RevRagnarok 23:19, 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 07:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan King[edit]

This looks to be a hoax. The Parthenon Group is real enough but it's in Boston, USA and appears to have a connection with New Zealand as it was co-founded by John C. Rutherford from New Zealand. However, there is nothing on the Parthenon website about Jordan King that I could find. Of course trying to search for the man produces millions of hits about the King of Jordan. Not voting at this time just listing as I think it needs more research. CambridgeBayWeather 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. According to the link at the bottom of the article to King's website in the archive section this article may have been created by King. Scroll to the bottom and it's in the tag board. Also if you check out Zeromillion, again scroll to the bottom, and there is a post from King. CambridgeBayWeather 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you trying going to www.google.co.nz and typing in Jordan King and searching under pages of New Zealand, there is a fair amount of info about King.

Comment - well, I did as you say, and there are matches for Jordan King, though mostly not relevant. However, I found no matches for '"Jordan King" jazz cafe', none for '"Jordan King" parthenon' and no relevant matches for '"Jordan King" entrepreneur'. If *real* information exists, please provide some direct references. --David Edgar 11:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page, unencyclopedic individual. It also seems unlikely that the same person would be "currently too young to vote" and at the same time "head of the Parthenon Group of Companies", as the article currently claims... --David Edgar 11:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this silly hoax. Ifnord 14:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page under WP:CSD A6. The article claims that the subject became a supporter of a certain political party because of a flesh-eating disease which damaged his brain. --Metropolitan90 00:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity bio (db-bio) --Ritchy 00:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNo hits on a New Zealand search engine. Hoax and attack.--71.28.242.96 00:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-bio. (Not CSD:A6 in my opinion, since the attack stuff is vandalism added later.) MCB 01:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable bio at best, the ravings of a madman at... well, second-best. --Dalziel 86 08:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by nominator withdrawal and unambiguous and unanimous community decision. Psy guy (talk) 06:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Santana[edit]

No assertion of notability other than "being the brother of." Aecis 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I hereby withdraw the nomination. Aecis 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's substantial media info on him (try a Google) and apparently has an internationally released CD. Seems notable. PJM 16:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I had already done that. There are so many Jorge Santana's out there that it's impossible to find out which is which, which ones are notable and why, and which one of those is "the brother of the famous guitarrist Carlos Santana." Aecis 16:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first hit I got was jorgesantana.com and I went on from there. PJM 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this has now officially become weird. The first hit I got was this one :S Aecis 17:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of information is not a ground for deletion. The article needs to be expanded and is appropriately 'stubbed'. Prashanthns 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of information is indeed not a ground for deletion. No proof of notability however is. Aecis 16:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Google on him produces more than 100000 hits!
Googling for the name "Jorge Santana" gave me only(?) 69,800 hits. That by no way means that each and every one of those hits was for the Jorge Santana of the article. Jorge and Santana are quite common names in Spanish-speaking countries. Note: if this is the person of the "internationally released CD" PJM mentioned, I immediately withdraw my nomination. But then Jorge Santana should obviously have an article because of that cd, not for "being the brother of," which is not much of an achievement. Aecis 17:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Jorge is both the musician in question and Carlos Santana's brother. See [19] and [20]. Most of the first 100 or so google hits are about him. He had a top twenty hit with the band Malo [21], Definitely worth keeping though AFD was in good faith. One more link [22] for verifiability --Reflex Reaction 17:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as notable musician under WP:music. He has an Allmusic.com page confirming Top 20 hit with Malo see [23] and also stating that he and Carlos recorded an album called Brothers in 1994. Capitalistroadster 18:47, 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 07:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Tobin[edit]

NN rapper. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. BrainyBroad 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (5 keep, 4 merge). Robert T | @ | C 00:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karolyne Smith[edit]

Not noteworthy enough.

Fails Google test (300 results for query "Karolyne Smith")

169.229.99.156 00:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's notable. Plenty of relevant Google hits. Devotchka 05:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It pains me so much to say this, but she's notable. I so very much wish that she wasn't. -- Captain Disdain 05:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jendeyoung 06:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good grief, tatooing the forehead for advertising is one way to gain attention I guess. Sadly, that attention makes her notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/re-direct to GoldenPalace.com. Unless she does tatoos for other companies (yikes), and gets attention for something outside the one company, than she doesn't warrant her own separate article. GoldenPalace.com already describes, and has room for growth, if appropriate. Anybody interested in this person, probably would think to look in the company's page, and not hers, since it's the company's name on her. --rob 08:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this solution, and agree with it-- especially since she was the second person to do this! We might see an article on Brent Moffatt someday soon, and if we do, that should be merged too. Jacqui ★ 05:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lado_District[edit]

Delete This is copy/paste, nonsense, and a possible copyright infringment. Bjelleklang - talk 09:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Userfied and DELETED. -Doc (?) 21:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Drummond[edit]

Article apparently written by subject, no claim for notability, misplaced user page perhaps Average Earthman 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy nn-bio. PJM 19:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy or Userfy. Devotchka 20:15, 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 SPEEDY DELETE per user request. jni 07:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user:linkofazeroth/tempwikiproj[edit]

I don't need it anymore, and don't know what else to do with it. Link, Hero of Wind 04:06, 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.  Denelson83  07:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in Connecticut[edit]

More listcruft. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Talk about pointless. Devotchka 00:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reverses cause and effect: articles about each of these shows would of course note their location, but a page doing the opposite about fictional stories (ie, tv shows) is nn. Dxco 00:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless, might as well make a list of every single thing that meets a certain criteria in that case. Spring Rubber 02:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, this is unformatted and unsourced, but there are some pretty important TV shows on that list. --Jacqui ★ 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Connecticut? Alphax τεχ 05:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this what categories are for? Trollderella 05:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the list were properly annotated, say with information about cities or landmarks in which the shows were filmed, then a list would be better than a category -- but as it stands, we don't have that information, and as the article itself is unsourced, we may have a hard time finding it. Jacqui ★ 05:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take another look at the page. Kappa 05:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! It's been significantly helped since I was there last. Okay, I was wrong. It can work as an annotated list. :) Jacqui ★ 15:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is beginning to prove your POV otherwise -- and will continue to do so, if it is allowed to stay and be expanded. Oh, and I forgot to vote -- keep and expand, or, if I am outvoted, I'd rather see a merge with Connecticut than a loss of the information. Jacqui ★ 15:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft per all above - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft Stu 12:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not looked at the article yet. If it lists twenty shows or more, I will vote keep on the basis of its having established that this is a vaguely important category of television shows. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Delete per Dxco. Not a significant kind of television show. Does not demonstrate that Connecticut has any special status in popular culture. Just an artificially constructed criterion invented for the purpose of creating a list. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gawd. Marskell 15:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Four shows. Obviously not a state popular enough to be notable. --Optichan 15:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dxco. --Pamri • Talk 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dxco. —Gaff ταλκ 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No longer an orphan. Linked to from Connecticut; member of Category:Connecticut and Category:Television lists. Makes a lot of sense in the context of these other lists. This is the sort of thing lists are for. Fg2 04:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list. I suspect that more then 4 shows have been set in the state so the list should grow over time. Vegaswikian 05:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of regional interest, certainly verifiable. Unfocused 17:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per unfocused. Newyorktimescrossword 19:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the type of list that a wiki may be useful in maintaining - not so large as to be unwieldy but potentially large enough to be interesting. It is also the type of information that, if someone wanted to find the information from scratch, would be difficult to assemble. -- DS1953 talk 19:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless and arbitrary list. --Aquillion 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless list, especially since, as far as I know, not one of the shows listed was actually filmed in Connecticut nor has any real connection to Connecticut except as an essentially random setting picked by the shows' producers. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Connecticut. It can be split off when it gets big enough. -LtNOWIS 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Connecticut. Very interesting trivia, especially to non-locals. Short enough to easily merge. w.ross  13:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Living national longevity recordholders[edit]

  • DeleteHow often would this have to be updated? Once a day? Also, the list includes people who have been in the news but not necessarily as cited (I doubt if Canada's oldest man is Clare Laking, who has been cited as a WWI veteran, not "oldest man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if they throw out the day count. The problem is, of course, that someone would still have to maintain it once in a while, but that's true for other pages on Wikipedia as well. The main issue I have this page is that currently, it has to be updated daily. Devotchka 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but agree with Devotchka. Change to birthdates instead. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment* It would be one thing to say that Julie Winnifred Betrand is the "oldest living Canadian," but to say she is the "living longevity recordholder" is a tongue-tied mess. Canada's recordholder is Marie-Louise Meilleur, 117 years 230 days (died Apr 16 1998). Thus, Julie Winnifred Betrand is NOT a "recordholder," though she probably is the "oldest living Canadian." Thus, I would suggest re-naming the article as well.Ryoung122 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable and unmaintainable. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's too hard to maintain and it's trivial. There are about 200 countries and these people tend to die soon after they become the oldest person in the country. Also, there is often no proof that the person is as old as they claim to be because of an absence of records. -- Kjkolb 03:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kjkolb. TheMadBaron 09:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting list.  Grue  13:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep how's everyone going to know who's the oldest living person in a certain country? Like, for example, who is the oldest living man in the Netherlands? User:65.93.29.176 03:44 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, User 65 certainly doesn't know...listing Johannes Heesters at 101 was sheer stupidity. The oldest Dutch man is currently 106, but any knowledge of demographics would have made Johannes Heesters too young to hold the record.Ryoung122 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Ryoung122. Article content has a lot of potential, but "living longevity" is needlessly obscure when "oldest living" works just as well. -Silence 01:18, 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. – ABCDe✉ 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lobita_Blanca[edit]

It is unnecessary and a waste of space. The number of people who would visit or care about this article is insignificant. Fancruft. Some guy 00:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's also meaningless to anybody except a player, and they have other resources to keep "information" like this. Tim.

  • Detele obscure tactic of some game. Perhaps the author could consider the the article for the game warrants mention of this element, but it certainly does not need it's own page.Dxco 00:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons mentioned above.
  • Delete fancruft. Should we add "Wikipedia is not a cheap GameFAQ.com knockoff" to WP:NOT? --Clay Collier 06:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we do, it'll probably get deleted by gamers, just as "Wikipedia is not a game guide or FAQ" was. 205.247.102.130 20:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN fancruft. And yes, Clay Collier, I'd vote for that! - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, Stu 12:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:45, 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 speedy deleted. (18:07, 29 October 2005 Woohookitty deleted "Lockwolf" (del. vanity)) - Mailer Diablo 07:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwolf[edit]

Non-encyclopedic, mostly vanity piece about some guy named David Caywood who plays games and is supposedly working on a FPS. I only get one google hit on "David Caywood" AND lockwolf. Delete — RJH 19:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity article and a lame one at that. NN. Devotchka 19:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utter vanity. Posting on forums does not make you notable. Candidate for a speedy delete, and now tagged as such. TheMadBaron 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the above reasons. Plus it's unutterably dull. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:14, 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Loser car[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide. The term loser car is not notable —Brim 07:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dicdef for Dave Barry neologism --anetode¹ ² ³ 07:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism (and POV as written). I much preferred "The 1987 Yugo, the cutting edge of Serbo-Croatian motor manufacturing technology" in Dragnet. If you're going to take the piss out of a car at least do it with a bit of style! - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Deleteapparently you don't understand. As is said in the artical "not in a insulting manner" this was not an insult to people like you who own the yugo. (if the yugo is a high performer, this is not under the definition of a loser car). I myself drive a Geo Metro which everyone calls a loser car. This is not directed at me, however, this is a comment used by other teenagers/young adults to describe this type of car in general. The term loser car is a used as an adjective to describe all cars that fit the definition I have given. Also if this term is put into Wiktionary (I would appreciate that), yes it is a slang term. Wiktionary is a tool that probably includes more words than any other dictionary. By putting this term into wiktionary misunderstandings (like that of the yugo owner) would clear up. People will understand that this is a term that is gaining popularity and means no insult to them or thier car but is a slang classification for a basic performance compact vehicle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.67.148 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Apparently YOU don't understand, but maybe in 30 years, you will. A true measure of importance is what others think of it, not what the nominator thinks of it.Ryoung122 21:55, 28 October 2005 (UT
  • KeepI've heard the term used before it is real and is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.67.148 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm an "American youth" and I've never heard of it. Jacqui ★ 05:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui, I don't know what part of the country you are from, but I know that here in the Inland Empire of California, you can't go through one day without hearing it.

Listen here[edit]

You guys think im some stupid prank teenager. yes, im 18, but i have written many other good articles. My writing is just as valuble as yours. If you want to see my other articles (which were completely written by me) try looking up Blue Jay, CA. This isn't done yet, but check out my start. How about West Potomac High School? Others think of it? Maybe 30 years ago you would have understood. This site is a free encyclopedia serving EVERYBODY including teenagers/young adults. Though YOU may have never heard this term this is a part of spoken language for people my age. It is an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. THIS ISN'T JUST ME. THIS ISN'T JUST WHAT THE NOMINATOR THINKS. and about what? I have nothing against geos, kias or yugos(yugos are not loser cars except for the low performance ones). IVE ALREADY SAID I DRIVE ONE!!! I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT MY CAR. I DONT HATE IT. This isn't my opinion. This is a fact. Facts belong in an encyclopedia (or dictionary). Next time someone criticizes my article i want FULL details. I dont want a brief criticism, I want a reason why you say something. This will be more helpful. I am open minded if you give me a good reason why you want me to remove this article i may agree with you and i will. I WANT FULL details. It would be more polite for the nominator to remove it (and i might) than a person who doesn't fully understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.67.148 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, you're not the first person to get annoyed with the brief, often codified debates. Please just understand that this page gets a lot of stuff coming to it, and in order to get the unpleasant task done, a lot of people sort of speed through it. However, I would suggest that you not use all caps to yell us into submission. I am afraid you'll find it backfire. WP:CIVIL exists for a reason. Jacqui ★ 05:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, man, slow down. I don't believe anyone thinks you're being insulting, they just think that dictionary definitions belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. I liked your article, I just don't think it's encyclopedic. I hope you'll keep writing lots of articles. Contributors like you are the heart and soul of Wiki. I also wish that people would refrain from harshing on one another's age. It's behaviour that counts, not years. I stand by my vote to delete, and I think if you slow down and take a look at it, you might still disagree with me, but you'll understand my reasoning. Have a better day. TECannon 06:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the Writer Thank you very much for your constructive and polite criticisms and the understanding. Im sorry for my rudeness in the last debate article i wrote. I was only responding to the rudeness in the other preceding criticisms. I agree with TECannon about this article being put in Wiktionary. Please, next person suggest it be put into Wiktionary by puting the template on the bottom(so it says on top that this article is being moved to Wiktionary and not this article is being recomended for deletion) I will then remove it from Wikipedia. Thanks again for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.67.148 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Comment for 69.140.67.148, since you want to discuss your edits, please explain your vandalism to the Yonex and Geo pages. You can also explain Brenco, now on Afd. Is that the "stupid prank teenager" in you? --JJay 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writer's ResponseMy past criticisms are right i must be more respectful to people like you. Yes I was having fun on Yonex. I was expirimenting you are right. Brenco however is real. I actually know about it by googling my own name. I share my name with a notable buisness man who tried to industrialize turkmenistan after the soviet collapse. Though his efforts failed I think his attempt to develop a third world country is deserving of an encyclopedia article. My "vandalism" to Geo is explainable to me saying the term loser car is real. If you find this offensive i will stop adding that to that page. Please keep googleing Brenco, you have to eventually come across something about the company. However, thank you for your suggestions i understand how you think I made such things as a prank.

Keep I actually have had my car called a "Loser Car" before. Keep on fighting 69.140.67.148. --User:BPRoy

  • Comment for 69.140.67.148/User:BPRoy. Rather than being more respectful to people like me, you could try to be more respectful to the site as a whole. Since you have now set up the user name User:BPRoy, please read WP:AFD. Note that multiple voting and sockpuppet activity are discouraged. Furthermore, in response to your message on my user page, I get no "rush" from deleting information that you contribute. However, I do revert vandalism when I see it --JJay 13:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable term. --93JC 04:08, 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 07:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Words[edit]

not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete please

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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✉ 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marco tv[edit]

Non-notable small business. Denni☯ 00:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not important, poorly written, sounds like an ad. Some guy 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small business, not important—Bitmappity 02:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertisement. TECannon 11:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or we could keep it as an example of the "enduring" quality of poorly written vanity article. Stu 12:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:46, 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 07:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Holtzman[edit]

An antropologist is no more notable than any other researcher. A further problem is that I am having trouble verifying the information in the article. For example a search on 'Matthew Holtzman neofuctionalism' yielded only 1 Google hit (which was irrelevant. The top hit of "Matthew Holtzman" is a PhD student who entered a PhD program in 2003. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability. Unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable for all practical purposes. Delete also from List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers to which same anon user has added him. I have a sneaking suspicion he exists but Google Scholar or the Uni of Seville don't find him. [28] has a possible mention. Dlyons493 Talk 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, since I can't find any info on him either. If kept, needs a re-write for comprehensibility, since it currently scans like a parody of wonky academic speech. -Colin Kimbrell 04:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletebecause I made a mistake entering the data. I am compiling list of anthropologists and I messed up the name
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MaxEnt thermodynamics[edit]

A list of references for a nonexistent article. Denni☯ 00:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might want to use one of the templates at Wikipedia:Edit_lock to mark when you're currently editing an article. Although, if you're creating from scratch it then it would probably be best to write out a decent stub in an off-line editor first, then upload it all at once. --Aquillion 08:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PME article stands well on its own, as a discussion of the principle in statistical inference generally. The present article is intended to specifically review the application of PME to thermodynamics; and the philiosophical take that holding such a position leads to, regarding the conceptual questions of thermodynamics. Jheald 10:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, now I'm confused. I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a place to publish detailed theses on nuances of complex technical subjects. As it is it reads like OR. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Zis, I am familiar with this and neither PME nor the application to statistical mechanics is OR in the sense you mean. There are in fact quite a few books on this stuff. One of the best is:
  • Kapur, J. N.; Kesevan, H. K. (1992). Entropy optimization principles with applications. Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 0-123-97670-7.
The strict Bayesian interpretation of statistics is internally controversial, but one of the nice things about this book is that avoids philosophy and sticks to the main point: this is darned useful stuff. There is also a nice article by J. N. Kapur in an Indian journal giving one of the best short introductions to entropy, which uses the PME point of view. Also excellent is Guiasu's article in the Mathematical Intelligencer, which also uses the PME point of view. ---CH (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cross-references to it now in place. Jheald 13:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jheald has been busy today. Let's wait to see what it looks like in a day or two. Tedernst 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing my nomination now that something is here. Note to author - please consider adding a few paragraphs up front in layman talk before getting on to the partial differentials. There ought to be something you can say about maximum entropy that I can slip into a casual conversation. Denni☯ 23:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid subject, not original research (merely a summary of a certain school of thought in physics). Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid and relevant subject to this site.----Newyorktimescrossword 19:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not strong in the field, but the article looks like it's got potential. -Colin Kimbrell 03:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems interesting and has historical valus as well as potential.  Ian13  19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This article is relevent to the timeline of thermodynamics --Greytangerine 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD seems to be based upon a misunderstanding as noted above by Jheald and Denni; I guess everyone should use {{underconstruction}, at least until they have established a reputation for writing good articles in a given area. In any event, PME is of course a thoroughly legitimate (and important!) topic in applied math. I'd be inclined to agree that the thermodynamic applications are sufficiently important to warrant a separate article. BTW, historically, Jayne introduced PME in the context of statistical mechanics, although nowadays that is probably best viewed as just one application, albeit a very important one. ---CH (talk) 19:29, 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 07:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Manuk[edit]

NN band, fails to meet criteria at WP:MUSIC BrainyBroad 04:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn band, self-promotion/advertising flavour. Pete.Hurd 22:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. (5d, 2b, 1a, 9k) - Mailer Diablo 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mounds Park Academy[edit]

Does not conform to Wikipedia MOS. Much of text reads like an advertisement. Perhaps this article could be kept if there were interested contributors who would devote effort to bringing it up to Wikipedia standards, but in its current condition it does not have much content that is non-vanity. If there is no move to improve it in 7 days, then I think we should Delete LiniShu 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This ought to have been marked {{cleanup}} and not brought here. I've made a quick de-POV. In any case bringing it here is pointless as there is an established no-consensus to delete school articles. --Doc (?) 22:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See reply on talk page --LiniShu 14:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my vote to Abstain following improvements to article. LiniShu 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-encyclopaedic, no attempt to establish notability, and clearly advertising. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have removed the remaining pov. Previous comments about "advertising" should now be regarded as void. CalJW 22:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CalJW's rewritten version. Seems notable enough for mine given likely outcome of schools articles. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Non-encyclopedic" and "no attempt to establish notability" remain. Denni☯ 01:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fixed article. --rob 01:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sounds like an advert.Gateman1997 01:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete avertisement not notable.-Dakota 01:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 20:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. -- DS1953 talk 20:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, sizable school, interesting historical info, find article very useful. Babajobu 21:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle for all the usual reasons.--Nicodemus75 23:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nicodemus, if I were the admin closing this, I would ignore your vote as unclear - do you wish to rephrase? --Doc (?) 23:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware that this vote will be ignored at closure - I have no desire to rephrase.--Nicodemus75 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to explain the purpose of the article. It is not meant to be an advertisement and it is not. It is meant to be informative. I got the information from the school's about page because I do not have time to right my own text but I thought there should be an article about the school. -Blue
    • The copy of this text from a copyrighted source to here was a mistake and shouldn't have been done. Hopefully the subsequent rewrite is sufficient, to keep the current version (I'm not clear on the rules for this). An article should only be created if/when an author has time to write entirely original content. Copyvios are subject to deletion without a vote. --rob 08:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a closer look, a couple old sentences were left, even after the de-POVing, but are gone now. I think the current version is legit, but an admin may wish to delete some history. --rob 08:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nice work by Thivierr to get this article up to par. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still nn --JAranda | watz sup 07:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it does not look like an advertisement to me Yuckfoo 20:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle as per Nicodemus75. —RaD Man (talk) 05:14, 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 07:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MSSF[edit]

  • Delete; article describing professional degree program at one university is not encyclopedia material. -James Howard (talk/web) 13:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn, agree with above.Dxco 06:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A one-year degree program like hundreds of others. Pilatus 12:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above. --Bachrach44 13:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TECannon 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And? Pilatus 01:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to me to be an obvious merge to Dublin City University. It's a measly few lines. How hard could it be to do? That would encourage more description of the other programs anyway, which can only be a good thing. Jacqui ★ 05:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The less is said about money-spinning taught "degree" programs the better. This isn't a university directory. Pilatus 15:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musical outfits[edit]

Delete Non-notable as per [29] --PhilipO 17:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Philosophy Alliance[edit]

nn. Gator(talk) 21:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator(talk) 21:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. largely pov.--Dakota 21:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, since I can find plenty of info on them on Google. I can't tell if they're all the same one, but besides a few minor sites, they're on some more major ones as well. Here's a homepage: http://www.worldnpa.org/main/. This article is pretty awful, but I think it could be turned into something salvagable. Devotchka 22:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 09:13, 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 as attack page. --Carnildo 22:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick de la Fuente[edit]

While I am not sure if this page is vanity or an attack page, it clearly suffers from problems with verifiability --207.136.49.111 02:27, 28 October 2005(UTC)

  • Delete. Can't find it on Google and awful anyway. Devotchka 02:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is indeed vanity or a personal attack. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable original research and POV. TECannon 11:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This "article" doesn't exhibit anything that Wikipedia stands for - its a personal attack, pure and simple frosted in the "contributors" person anger issues. Stu 12:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both articles. - Mailer Diablo 07:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic TransFans Association and Lars Eriksson (webmaster)[edit]

Not a large enough association to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Eriksson's only claim to notability is his association with the Nordic TransFans Association, so clearly if that article is deleted, this one should be deleted as well, and even if it is kept, it ought to be merged into that one. Caerwine 23:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Combined multiple AFDs for efficiency. Delete both per nom. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Nordic TransFans Association as being the most popular Transformers fan club in the Nordic countries, and maybe merge Lars Eriksson (webmaster) to it. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. TheMadBaron 09:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, they have a forum of 300 members. It's questionable how "Nordic" this association really is - it mostly consists of Swedes, and "There are also a couple of Danes, and even one person from Iceland once joined". Punkmorten 11:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This was the situation in spring 2005. I haven't updated the article, but the forum's membership has grown more heterogenic. The majority are still Swedes, but there have lately been many more Finns and some more Norwegians. Not much more Danes though, and it still has only one Icelander. — JIP | Talk 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, forumcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:41, 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 it out of sight, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Sight (band)[edit]

Local band that hasn't released any albums yet. The same user has created Brandon T which is currently in afd and not doing very well; Division 867 which has been deleted and Division 867 and C-Real: Lyrical Masters and Division 867 and C-Real which are both in afd and not doing very well. Francs2000 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete vanity article for obscure bar band that has not released an album. Author essentially admits non-notablity in article. I wish them the best, but wikipedia is not a forum in which to list everyones personal garage band and wotnot. Dxco 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 06:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Cnwb. --Clay Collier 06:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with thanks to the author for bringing the band's non-notability so prominently to our attention. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN vanity page. Should come back to Wikipedia, though, when it accomplishes something other than the listing in this VfD. Stu 12:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:45, 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 07:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.E.r.g. Inc[edit]

Pornography company founded in 2005. Not (yet) notable. -- RHaworth 23:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article reads more like some kid made it up, but not notable, even if it does exist. --Stormie 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Obnoxious as hell too. Devotchka 23:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn or hoax. Unable to find any references to it at all. MCB 02:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. —Brim 06:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wait ... Peder? Not the infamous ... Peder "Ass" T?! Badly written vanity article. Delete it twice, for good measure. --DavidConrad 09:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 09:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete waste of time Dlyons493 Talk 02:51, 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 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Practice squads[edit]

I feel that it is a valuable asset to Wikipedia, but it didn't really desrve it's own article... I am not recommending a delete, but I wish to Merge it with the National Football League Page. --Hossmann 01:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The NFL article is long enough as it is, and the practice squad article may grow a little. --Bachrach44 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In fact it doesn't look like the nomination is for deletion at all. Isn't there some GFDL issue about merging content and not keeping a record of its original title? I tend to agree with unsigned user above. TECannon 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why you leave a redirect at the original article. If you merged Practice squads to National Football League, and rewrote the 'Practice squads' page to redirect to the NFL page, it would be permissable under GFDL, as the original contribution history is maintained. Saberwyn 06:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please by itself but tecannon is right too we cannot erase this Yuckfoo 19:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. This has potential, and I agree that the NFL article is long enough already. Jacqui ★ 05:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and send to BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RAICM[edit]

neologism Tedernst 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Devotchka 20:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN - must... preserve... for... e... veeeer!!!  BD2412 talk 20:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is funny, but is it well-known silliness? A2Kafir 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN - what is it about Fridays? - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:43, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reality tagging[edit]

Neologism Denni☯ 00:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Weirdly inaccurate too. Nobody was putting protest stickers on things until 2005? Devotchka 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN neologism. --Clay Collier 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the author isn't claiming that protest stickers were invented in 2005, but that 2005 is when the term 'reality tagging' was coined for the use of protest stickers in a particular political context in Lithuania. Removing all articles that are not notable in the English-speaking world may tend to perpetuate the systematic bias in Wikipedia some folks are concerned about. Still, this might be more of a Wiktionary thing. TECannon 11:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to worry about systemic bias: this is a dicdef and would still be a dicdef if it was talking about American stickers. If we want an article about protest stickers, it should be called protest stickers or be a section in the protest article or something, not called by a word that was invented well after the act it describes. --Last Malthusian 14:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then, per Last Malthusian. TECannon 16:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.-->Newyorktimescrossword 19:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reality tagging is a new concept original enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. It is not suited for Wiktionary because it is related to several new and fast-changing concepts, firstly tagging. Tagging itself is a new and developing technology (only started to be used in mainstream web services - even Yahoo 360 is still in beta only). This and the term's use by a movement may mean that the term undergoes some changes in its meaning relatively quickly (I happen to be interested in electronic tagging - the technologies and uses are from mobile phones to shops - and moving ahead).

Is it protest stickers? I think it's tagging, because there's a significant difference between protesting by slapping hate stickers on the doors like "Don't vote Bush" (unconstructively, almost by definition) or sticking stickers that give usual information to other users/consumers, suggestions on further human and political action, and carry a corrective/disciplining message? What if the movement adopts any of the new technologies (say, mobile phone tagging)? This will of course still be reality tagging - but only then the critics will consider it worthy of an article? So no chance of an Indian, African or Lithuanian concepts getting into Wikipedia - unless they use Western technology? Cool - what if the Chinese patented printing in the 12th century? I also support previous remarks on Wikipedia's (and Wikinews') bias. It's firsly a cultural bias. Also, just remembered following the links at the bottom of the article and reading that the concept (and presumably the term) has been featured in a major Lithuanian paper. Is it still a neologism, then? Should we wait for a book in English on that?

  • Comment Ok, for starters, the first comment seems to be talking about something different to the actual article (*edit* Political stickers are certainly not a new concept). And the second one has already been addressed: this is a new term to describe an old form of protest. It's got nothing to do with the place the word came from, it's about the time it came from. If we are to have an article about protest stickers, it shouldn't be called by a neologism. At the most it should be a redirect to stickers, which already notes their political significance. Thirdly, the second anon seems to have a rather weird pro-Bush POV. "Don't vote Bush" sounds very like a "suggestion on further human and political action" to me. --Last Malthusian 10:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Last Malthusian, from what I see I conclude that you avoided to address all the indirect questions and arguments found in my previous comments. Do you believe that the reality tagging (as described in the article) is closer to protest stickers (disregarding the several differences I pointed above) or to mobile tagging (like http://www.semapedia.org/)? I believe that it's closer to Semapedia, Bango etc (because it has EVERYTHING to do with the concept of cellular or otherwise tagging and NOTHING to do with protest stickers except the media it uses in a certain country - presumably due to cost restraints. What you are saying is that Gandhi didn't invent the Freedom. But he achieved it a highly original way. You also advocate a very typical Anglo-American concept of "clear writing" - which refuses foreign (cough - French/European - cough) terms and prefers to use language as economically as possible, thus creating a formal speak stripped of most exitement and emotion, full of HOME-INVENTED neologisms ("folksonomy" comes to my mind; never heard of it in other languages; it's wikipedia site even states it's a neologism!) - just like your brief/non-existent response to my questions. Because it was you who didn't respond, please have another opportunity to do so - look at the 4 points bellow:

reality tagging neologism: refuted (used by mainstream media in the country of Lithuania) similarity with historical meaning of "protest stickers": sticker media; other concepts bearing such similarity are price stickers (1,99), discount stickers (2 for 1), etc. similarity with future meaning of "protest stickers": probably non-existent; mobile or RFID technologies will replace the use of sticker media in countries/by activists that can afford it. time (if you refuse to believe the 3 above arguments - for reasons that escape me): as a person said above, the term "reality tagging" was first used in 2005 in a Lithuanian context. Does anybody disagree?

To finish with - why is Flash Mob in Wikipedia? Isn't it just a good-old protest mob, or just mob? Does it's coordination with new technologies (mobile phones and the internet) make it a new concept, the (usual) political pointlessness of the act, or the attention of Anglo-American corporate media, like CNN and BBC? Or maybe a similarly titled book by an American author (Howard Rheingold)? Was it that an American invented "flashmobs" - or was he the first/the only one who cared to advertise them on CNN? Regards.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverie[edit]

Band not notable, seems to be promotion TastemyHouse 07:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding... they are amazing.... at being the worst band ever on wiki

  • Speedy. It's not even an article now. --Puzzlet Chung 10:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy NN before and now it's empty. PJM 16:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under WP:CSD G1 having no content and A3 consisting of only a link to the band's home page. Capitalistroadster 17:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Vanity. Cookiecaper 20:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a speedy, prior versions contained more than enough content and context to avoid being called 'empty" or being nothing but a link. However, delete unless some evidence of notability prsented. DES (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - seems this page was originally a dicdef of the word "reverie" and this band high-jacked it. I like the cut of their jib (dear god not their music tho TastemyHouse 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC) (copied from the talk page)
    • This is true, but then a dictdef could reasonably be nominated for deletion also. DES (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I reverted the page back to the original version and then added the following vote (made after the page was replaced with "Big Kitty... smell reverie") on the bottom. TastemyHouse 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. Their number one on the mp3.com.au download chart would make them notable under the music notability guidelines (I presume it includes download charts?). But other than that there really isn't enough notability here. frankh 20:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally dont think #1 on mp3.com.au makes them particularly notable -- I'm also confused as to how they got that ranking at all, considering the extremely low quality of the recording they made -- I'm not referring to the MUSIC specifically but to the production of their demo. -- While their music does seem amatuerish to me, i dont think that should particularly be criteria for deletion... I dunno it all points to "garage band". We dont have any info on how mp3.com.au does their rankings, like if it could be stuffed with a simple "vote" or "download" script. or anything. Yeah.... omglol... TastemyHouse 20:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Think having them #1 on mp3.com.au makes them very notable. People on other charts, such as the overall chart... are bands such as 'Fall Out Boy', one of Australia's leading bands. I understand Mp3.com.au judge there ratings on per download, per cookie/IP Address, Therefor not to have people 'upping' themselfs by downloading excessively. Also, this is not the only avenue people will hear the song... people may here it at one of Reverie's Gig's and go home really liking the song, and download it. So the fact that this band, no matter how good they actually are, cannot afford time in a recording studio to preduce a perfect copy, is irrelavant, if people are downloading the song because they like it before they heard it on mp3.com.au.
  • Delete or Rewrite -- This band's page EITHER needs to be gotten rid of OR greatly rewritten. Notable or not, when i found it it looked like a vanity page. TastemyHouse 05:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From one of the members of reverie: " HeyHEy everyone i just read the deletion notice on wikipedia

its rather funny but we did cop alot of **** lol but yeh note its true we are a garage band and we useda ten yr old camera to record narcolepsy but hey who cares through our own careless voting and good freinds we made it to number #1 hey soz about the hijaking and the abuse i gave out before but yeh it was rather unexpected and u started it lol ahwell it was funny and note u might not want to blok the ip because it was from our school i wil just tel exodus Yon ( a poster here ) not to abuse it again lol Anywayz G2g Cyaz all roundReverie rules " TastemyHouse 05:40, 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 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Palk[edit]

writer vanity, currently working on his "first novel" — brighterorange (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy nn-bio. PJM 18:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Devotchka 19:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity, advert. Dxco 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roe_effect[edit]

Not a real effect, promoted by single journalists, blatantly POV

See variety of comments in favour of deletion of very similar "NRA Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NRA_effect

  • Keep. This unsigned and improperly submitted VFD (I had to put it on the log, as VFDer could not be bothered to follow procedure) is obviously political retaliation for the successful VFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NRA effect. Note that User:Grizzlebees has only posted on this subject (Special:Contributions/Grizzlebees); user's first (surviving) edit was to add a link to the NRA effect, an article she created about a spurious effect with no discussion at all on the Web by that name that I could find. The Roe effect has been extensively discussed, with statistics, by Mr. Taranto, and has been used by others. Whether you agree with an article's topic or not isn't the issue; the issue is whether the article's topic exists as an issue to discuss. The Roe effect does; the NRA effect does not. A2Kafir 20:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a valid article to me. It's an established theory and that's what counts. Devotchka 20:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - it appears to be a pet theory of a single journalist, per nom. I find the thesis not particularly credible, since only a tiny minority of women have terminations anyway, and people become more conservative with age; children of conservative parents are often very liberal as a reaction against those parents. Not that credibility is a criterion, but a hobby horse of one journalist / commentator with no evidential basis is decidely unencyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you have 40 million abortions or so since 1972 and conclude that it's a "tiny minority"? But that's not really the issue here; the issue is that is the article's subject of significant use? Seems to be: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] The point is, it's out there being discussed. It's not just made up on the spot, as NRA effect was. A2Kafir 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - concept seems to be widely discussed. The article does not go into all aspects of the Roe Effect though - some of them may be considered pro-Democrat or pro-pro choice. Adding these to article Bwithh 02:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if kept, the article needs to be cleaned up. There are so many problems with this hypothesis that it's hard to know where to begin. It's very similar to the "NRA effect", except more widely known. -- Kjkolb 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue (Dubai based Pakistani Band)[edit]

Non notable band as yet. No albums etc. CambridgeBayWeather 06:57, 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 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Route Avec Cypres"[edit]

Article says nothing about its title. Denni☯ 02:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary. We don't need an article describing an individual painting of Van Gogh's. Maybe do a redirect. Devotchka 02:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Au contraire. Wikipedia has at least 11 pages covering individual paintings of Van Gogh, and many others by other artists. ♠DanMS 04:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spoke too soon. I just didn't think this one qualified for its own article. I support keeping it if someone can make a real article out of what we've got so far. (Basically nothing.) Devotchka 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up and move to Route Avec Cypres. Notable painting by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 05:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten. While I agree about notability, the nom is correct that this article says nothing and it would take a specialist to make more than a stub out of an individual painting. The full title should be Route avec Cypres et Ciel Etoile if kept. Dlyons493 Talk 05:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you can find the other painting articles at Category:Vincent van Gogh. -- Kjkolb 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There's nothing stopping someone from writing an article about this particular painting in the future, right? The painting is notable, but the entry is not even a stub. TECannon 12:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not against articles about individual paintings in principle, but strip out the POV and we've got "This is a painting by Vincent Van Gogh, who painted The Cracked Vase With The Big Daisies, which is a very good painting." Both points are covered by their own articles, to say the least. --Last Malthusian 14:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:21, 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 (5 keep, 1 delete, 2 merge, making keep only 62.5%). Robert T | @ | C 00:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Searsport (CDP), Maine[edit]

1) the fact that the US census is over makes this much less notable, 2) it's just arbitraryly drawn district around Searsport and is not the same as the Searsport town lines 3) it makes for a confusing search when trying to find Searsport, Maine (the town) (evidenced by the history that categorized this as a town when it's not the town) and 4) it's just not adding anything useful to Wikiepdia when there is a good article with same statistics about the actual town in place. It's nothing more than a list of out of date statistics concerning an arbitrary ditrit (that no longer exists, because the census is over) that is better covered in another article. Even a merge would be a waste of time. Please delete this.Gator(talk) 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator(talk) 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Searsport (town), Maine and move to Searsport, Maine. See also Unity, Maine. Gazpacho 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Gazpacho. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The nominator is committing a fallacy...first of all, the census information is legally valid until the next census. Second, the 2010 census likely will use the same lines as those for the 2000 census. Also, some census-designated places have been very large and significant, and some later became cities (such as Sandy Springs, GA, pop 85,781). To delete an article on this basis alone is way off base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoung122 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CDP and the town describe two different regions. It may not be useful for tourists, but it is useful for census, demographic, and statistical purposes. A map that distinguishes the two would probably be helpful. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 23:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid CDP until deprecated; any naming issues can be dealt with by disambiguation. MCB 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per MCB. -- Decumanus 04:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CDPs are notable. These are boundaries drawn by the census bureau and the areas are approximately the same size as municipalities, and often provide the only subdivision within a county. The World Almanac for example lists several such CDPs. If we started getting articles on individual census tracts, listed only by a number however, that would be a different story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 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. Robert T | @ | C 00:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive Pornograph[edit]

delete unless someone's willing to rewrite --Trovatore 06:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, presumably real anime, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 06:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment my view is that very badly written articles should be deleted unless someone shows a willingness to rewrite. If someone wants to write a good article later, nothing prevents it. --Trovatore 06:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • An AFD takes up more editors' time than fixing it would. Kappa 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Author has not demonstrated notability of this anime. Dxco 06:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is a mystery to me; this article is a rough description and a plot summary, not bad for an hour-old stub. What's the problem with this? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the notability of an anime or the poor quality of the article shouldn't influence its existence. tag it for cleanup or expansion and leave it to be the seed of some other wikipedian's working TastemyHouse 07:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs to be improved Prashanthns 10:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep why does it need to be rewritten so it is not erased that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 19:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Cookiecaper 20:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified, no cited sources and doesn't google. Radiant_>|< 00:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. Trollderella 00:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anything with the word porno in it is notable and worth keeping. —Brim 06:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's a whole work, so I'm not sure how it's fancruft. What kind of claim of notability would you be looking for? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp (band)[edit]

Withdrawn based on respones. Tag removed. PJM 21:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most notable K-Pop groups. Kappa 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. Cnwb 06:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:music. Difficult to find confirmation due to common name but this page confirms they have released five albums see [37]. As such they appear to meet WP:music.Capitalistroadster 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please they make great music too Yuckfoo 19:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smallworld GIS[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The article is of very poor quality currently, reads somewhat like an advert, and almost completely fails to describe the topic. But, it is a software pack of some sort. Dxco 06:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with GE Prashanthns 09:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia guidelines on deletion say that blatant advertisements are subject to deletion, and this is an advertisement. I doubt anyone will want to read it in five years, let alone fifty. TECannon 15:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, non-notable. It is advertising in the sense that the language is completely promotional, even if the anon who placed it isn't employed by GE. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete advertising. Pete.Hurd 22:29, 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 let count... 1, 2, 3, ... 11m, 2k/m, 15k(2anon) ...uh.... no consensus. Surely it's not a delete closing though. I suggest having a discussion on the article talkpage on whether to merge or not would be good. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog) (2nd nomination)[edit]

For the previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (Hurricane Katrina dog).

I'm nominating this on AfD as a response to User:Khatores's comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Thomas Kycia, which I closed as "delete" and deleted. I'm just a janitor - I don't decide consensus, I determine it and carry it out. As for this dog, sure it has had media attention, but so have a lot of humans. Surely humans are more important than dogs? Weak delete. — JIP | Talk 07:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say 'POV'?! ;) Trollderella 02:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to merge per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one of the Hurricane articles - the previous AFD was a sockpuppet-fest and should probably have been closed as a merge. Alphax τεχ 07:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim & Merge with Hurricane_Katrina#Animal_concerns, as was suggested in the previous afd. --anetode¹ ² ³ 08:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim lots and Merge per Anetode - mholland 10:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Snowball. Nice to see you again. Let's hope you never have to come back. Merge and redirect as per Anetode, delete otherwise. Lord Bob 14:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Anetode. Worth noting but not as standalone article. Capitalistroadster 16:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would vote merge, but there's a lot of material. Trollderella 00:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Drastically Cut Down - way way too much info for a minor footnote to the Katrina disaster. Bwithh 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too much for what purpose? If someone is interested in these stories, and many people are, then it's not too much information. It's not like we're hurting for space! Trollderella 01:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal opinion is that the article should be deleted (nn, minor ephemeral news story), but feel compelled to vote keep as a matter of policy, since there was an AfD about a month ago with a fully-realized discussion. I wouldn't mind revisiting this in a year or so, though. MCB 01:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a few lines or so into Hurricane Katrina per others. Even though there was an AfD a month ago, the issue was still very new at that time, a current event which may have influenced the decision to keep. I think a month is a good amount of time for a reevaluation of this matter.--Kewp (t) 09:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP* - My vote is to keep this article. It is well written and documents an incident (the AP story about 'Snowball' and the subsequent media fuery -- that prompted a change in US government policy relating to evacuees being allowed to take their pets with them. This change in FEMA policy would likly not have occured without the story of Snowball's plight. (left by 68.99.130.81)
  • Merge does not deserve its own article and cannot really stand solo. Merge into Hurricane Katrina as a small paragraph.  ALKIVAR™ 11:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would anyone want to delete this? It's a great story, nicely written with references. There are no grounds within the deletion policy for deleting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons it was kept last time. There is far too much of an article to justify merging it.--Nicodemus75 12:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable story OmegaWikipedia 14:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and chop out 90% of it. Repeated block quotes from news stories doesn't qualify as good writing. Notability over-stated: "Snowball's plight became a vocal point for criticism..." Hm. Marskell 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep When I heard about this story, I came to Wikipedia first to find out more about it. I'm sure I'm not the first and only person to do so. I agree with the anon poster above how there were changes made at the federal level so people could take their animals with them in the event of a disaster. I do think it is a notable story and while this may not be of interest to some, it is to others. Maltmomma (chat) 17:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. In fifty years, is this going to be of any reasonable notability? For that matter, is it of any reasonable notability now? This is the sort of thing that belongs at Wikinews, and not here. Encyclopedia articles are about topics of high importance, not stories about a boy's lost dog, no matter how sad they may be (although I'm certain this couldn't possibly be any more sad or involving than the stories involving thousands of children and babies seperated from their parents. Are we to write articles for all of them as well?) --FuriousFreddy 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, just don't delete... Redwolf24 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article has grown well enough that it's rather pointless to pare down the content in a merge, and it has references to coverage in national news media. --Idont Havaname 03:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widespread media coverage establishes notability, and the article is well-sourced. As to the 50 years question, I think Snowball will likely end up as one of the enduring images of one of the worst natural disasters in American history, sort of like Eddie Adams's photo of the executed Vietcong soldier became a sort of historical shorthand for the events of the Vietnam War. Merge would be better than delete, but there's enough info here that like Trollderella, I worry about whether a merge could be unwieldy. -Colin Kimbrell 03:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As before, delete. It was glurge the first time, it's putrefied glurge now. There is nothing notable in this article to merge anywhere; any merge that would be of encyclopedic merit would consist of nothing more than During and after the hurricane, many people were separated from their pets. One of those pets, Snowball, was the subject of minor media attention that lasted about a week until the next human-interest story surfaced to claim column inches. Come on. News is news; an encyclopedia is something different. Not every media circle-jerk is encyclopedic, and certainly not this one. -EDM 07:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable story - disk space is cheap. Unbehagen 20:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there is plenty of information, it is a notable story, and merging would be unwieldy. Speculating what will or won't be important 50 years into the future is not a good idea. Yamaguchi先生 03:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - It cant be ignored as if it never happened. --AGruntsJaggon 06:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply cannot understand what some of these people are doing working on this encyclopaedia. It's enough to make you weep. Keep. Grace Note 03:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 12:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Do not merge, do not pass go. —RaD Man (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable, and too much information to merge. --Deathphoenix 15:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: This story does matter and a place for updates is important. Too many people miss the point of this story. It is not just about the little dog, it is about the little boy too. What an especially horrible experience for him! He will carry this burden with him for the rest of his life. Of course we still care about him. (Unsigned comment by 204.42.16.169
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete (7d, 2k). This is a difficult one. If any sysop disagrees with this conclusion, feel free to revert me. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Songs in triple meter[edit]

Trivial and unmaintainable list —Wahoofive (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - many voters here have justified their deletion votes on the grounds that this list is "listcruft". What is listcruft? It is not listed on WP:DEL. I just did a google search of listcruft, restricted to wikipedia.org. It got just 80 hits. Most from within the last month. Most from other {afd} discussions. If it is not a criteria listed on WP:DEL voters shouldn't be basing their vote on it. If we have a cabal of anti-listcrufters shouldn't they do the open democratic thing, and lobby to amend the official deletion criteria? -- Geo Swan 12:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listcruft is shorthand for unmaintainable, arbitrary and unencyclopaedic lists. Cruft is essentially electronic flotsam. The problem with lists of this type is that unless they are studiously miantained they end up being misleading, either through absence of notable examples of which the author is personally unaware, or because the author loses interest, or whatever. This is distinct form categorisation, which is self-maintaining (many Wikipedians spend hours adding correct category tags to articles). So a category for music in triple metre would show notable songs in triple metre - that is good. A list of sings in triple metre is always going to be arbitrary (indeed, the selection of tripel metre is itself arbitrary), and WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to suggest that discussions here should be transparent. Contributors coming here should be able to understand what is being discussed even if they are not privy to the private short-hands of long-term followers of deletion discussions.
  • This is your personal definition of "listcruft"? It is not defined anywhere on the wikipedia? How can anyone have any confidence that the other people who use this term mean the same thing by it as you do?
  • The perceptions that an article is "unmaintainable", "arbitrary" or "unencyclopaedic" are not listed as valid criteria for deletion.
  • Other contributors have suggested that this should be a category, not an article containing a list. Categories can be, IMO, a very weak reed. Some categories work well. A lot dont. There are categories where you look at the items, and are mystified how anyone could ever think they were related. With a list, the list is prefaced with the criteria for inclusion. Take a look at a short rant I wrote about non-obvious categorization.
  • The design of the wikipedia software makes lists innately more maintainable than categories. You can put an article that contains a list on your watchlist. And, when someone modifies that article, you can examine how it changed, through the history mechanism, form your opinion as to whether the edit was questionable. But there are no watchlists for changes to categories. The interested person doesn't get advised when questionable entries are made, or when a vandal deletes the category from an article that does belong. -- Geo Swan 15:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can convince me why I should care. I don't mean that rudely; I know what a key signature is, but I don't know why it would matter that much for any kind of music. If someone can tell me it matters, I'm all ears. A2Kafir 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Change vote to neutral. I'm not qualified to comment, I've decided. A2Kafir 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's rare for pop music songs to be in triple meter. If this were List of pop music songs in triple meter it would be a list with fairly narrow inclusion criteria. Uncle G 21:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uninteresting is not a valid criteria for deletion. Paper encyclopedias contain articles that are uninteresting, because encyclopedias serve as reference resources.
    • No one is smart enough to follow every field of human endavour. We have to be tolerant of the interests of others. We have to be tolerant of the views of others. A couple of weeks ago I participated in the discussion of a star. I was frankly shocked by the narrow-mindedness of some of those voting to delete. They were uninterested in Astronomy, so those interested in Astronomy couldn't add to the wikipedia's material on Astronomy? -- Geo Swan 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's next, List of songs in 5/4 time? List of songs in 7/4 time? List of songs in 9/16 time? Listcruft to the max. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I started this song list with the intent that it mostly cover songs from the 1990s and later in an effort to show that 3/4 and 6/8 has had a resurgence in popularity and commercial vitality. It used to be more or less reserved for Honky Tonk, Country, Blues, Jazz, etc, but now it's quite popular in Metal (Tool, Perfect Circle, Chevelle), Indie (Quasi, Elliott Smith, Death Cab For Cutie) and even rap/ hip-hop (Camron, Outkast). And as far as List of songs in 5/4 time? List of songs in 7/4 time? goes, those songs are contained on List of works in irregular time signatures. I hope to convince y'all that this list is NOT trivial and if it becomes unmaintainable (i.e. too long) it can be separated into shorter lists covering shorter time spans. And it's a time signature, not a key signature. I think it's a real trend that is going on in modern American music right now, but I do realize that it's beneath most peoples' radars. Most people just don't think that way about music. Can anyone back me up here? I'm definitely not opposed to changing the name of the page to reflect a more narrow scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.156.36 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-28 21:50:00 UTC
    • Restrict it to the 1990s and later, and you'll exclude "We All Stand Together (with The Frog Chorus)", released in 1984. Uncle G 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If indeed there is a resurgence of interest in 3/4 meter, won't this list immediately become impossibly huge? —Wahoofive (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Users should be able to find examples of songs in this musical meter. Kappa 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. The number of songs in triple metre is probably beyond comprehension and certainly beyond cataloguing here. I have a book of English songs dating back to the 17th and 18th Centuries and a good number of them are in triple metre. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So users should not be able to find any examples of songs in this meter? Kappa 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because based on what 12.30.156.36 says, what we have here is a corpus of source material for a piece of interesting original research that does not belong in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if restricted to 1990s and later per Uncle G's argument (I kid!), delete otherwise. — mendel ☎ 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 00:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So users should not be able to find any examples of songs in this meter? Kappa 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Easily fixed: add a category for 3/4 metre (and any other metre for that matter), and any notable songs about which there are entries will be added over time withut the need to remember to maintain a separate list. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep IF it stays 90s and after in pop, rock, popular music in general. Any thing else would be too expansive. 3/4 is cool128.104.51.236 01:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So "list of songs meeting an arbitrary and common criterion" is deletable but "list of songs meeting an arbitrary and common criterion and written after an arbitrary date" is a keeper? - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving only the problem of why this might be considered in any way unusual. What is the essential difference between this and a list of cars available in blue? Clearly there is a difference, since we all know that songs in 3/4 are actually quite unusual in some genres. Will this list include only those genres? Or will the notable cases simple be swamped by non-notable cases from genres where triple metre is more common? Would Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte be included? I am still struggling to see what purpose this article fulfills in the context of an encyclopaedia. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet more music listcruft. MCB 01:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So users should not be able to find any examples of songs in this meter? Kappa 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to be honest. I'd prefer reading an article on 12.30.156.36's hypothesis. However, I agree that would be original research, and that wikipedia is not the place for that. The list itself, however, is not original research, and could prove very telling as time goes by simply by existing. Fascinating. Keep! Jacqui ★ 06:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article on triple metre with a few examples might be interesting, but a list of songs in triple metre (with or without the addition of an arbitrary date criterion) is surely just listcruft - unmaintainable and unencyclopaedic - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have argued this way before myself, but I am starting to think against it. The logic is, so just because we Wikipedia editors don't do our proper job of maintenance (which could include changing the list criteria, I admit), then that means that users don't deserve to have the information. Imagine if we argued that way about Wikipedia itself -- "Well, it's so large, there will always be crappy articles around the edges that we can't get to." Does that mean we flush Wikipedia down the toilet because we don't want to maintain it? I hope not. Jacqui ★ 16:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this: the accurate title for this article is "list of songs in an arbitrary metre which is uncommon in some genres, written after an arbitrary date, and which are known to the subset of people who realise this page is here and are motivated to add them, up to and including the date of last revision, but without any attempt being made to explain why that metre is unusual in certain genres, or to identify how complete or otherwise the list might be, or how notable the songs are.". Every day hundreds of new songs are written. And 3/4 is not new, I have songs going back centuries written in 3/4. This article is necessarily and inherently incomplete, and unquantifiably incomplete at that. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's that complicated, then obviously what we need is a comprehensive article on triple meter, which we do have though it needs to be expanded is currently a redirect to a very generic article on meter, and a number of lists broken out from this one with more quantifiable criteria, to help users analyze the complicated concept. In which case, I would still vote keep, and then afterwards we could all work out how to deal with the data left, because it will take some effort, as providing a service to users always does. Jacqui★ 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is very much what I think, the crucial point being quantifiable criteria. Examples of rock songs in triple metre, with some background, is good. Without closely defined criteria all we have is a complately arbitrary collection of songs. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, cool. So we actually agree on something. I guess the part we disagree on is the process of actually supplementing the triple meter concept. I personally don't think this list needs to be deleted to do that, though I think we agree we may have to change it substantially -- rename it, change criteria, etc. Because wiki isn't paper, we don't have to burninate this one before making a new one. We can make a new one out of this one. Jacqui ★ 14:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we always did agree fundamentally. And as to whether the solution is to scrap this page and create another one, or change this page in outline and concept then redirect it to a new name which more accurately reflects that new (and encyclopaedic) purpose - well, perhaps that is a difference which makes no difference :-) As soon as new content is added to the page to reflect the changed direction which, as far as I can tell, most of us seem to agree is worth having, I will change my vote. Since the songs listed are in genres with which I am largely unfamiliar, being more interested in opera, madrigals and oratorios, I cannot myself really contribute in that respect. I guess I'm always goign to have some problems with the kinds of things that get into Wiki, especially when fans pad out articles on bands with a fan base in the dozens to be longer than articles on the likes of Bryn Terfel, but there you go. It is the modern way, as documented by the numerous "x best y of all time" lists which, if voted by the publis, are always dominated by this year's entries. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Just zis Guy, you know? - TheMadBaron 09:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I was just making a list that is of interest to me and other musicians (as opposed to music fans...big difference...sorry if that seems snotty) and I've definitely sparked a debate about a larger issue. Articles don't have to be interesting to everyone to be deemed non-listcruft. I mean, I couldn't personally give a shit about a list of amino acids, microbials, etc., but I'm really glad that someone people do care. By the way, I think some people are voting to delete here based simply on the fact that it gives them an excuse to use a cool new nonce word. Yeah, listcruft, cool. Guys..don't knock what you don't understand. If 3/4 or 6/8 (or any signature but common, really) makes a splash in the music market, it's out of the ordinary. An article on my theory would be original research, but a list is verifiable (3/4 is not a theory) AND maintainable. I'm glkad that someone polices new article creation, but some of you are going overboard, as others have pointed out.70.226.157.116 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don't knock what you don't understand?" How patronising is that? 3/4 time is not a brand which can "make a splash" on the music "market", it's a musical metre which has been around for at least 350 years. And yes,I am a musician and have spent may hundreds of hours around other, much better musicians. So, if the purpose of your article is to document a resurgence of interest in triple metre in a particular genre, then do just that. If it's to say why triple metre is interesting, cool. If (as at present) it's just a list of the songs you could think of at the time which are in 3/4, then I urge you to contribute to my "list of things on the second shelf up at Waitrose, Caversham". - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds patronizing Just zis Guy, you know?, because I figured if I can't make you see that you're over-policing based on your lack of interest in a given topic, then I might as well try to make you think that you don't understand the significance of the topic, which I still believe. Guess that didn't work because you're an award-winning musician. And why are you so hung up on 3/4 being old? I know that, I think we all do. You seem to not read what others have written on this page or choose not to respond because you're savoring the thought of deleting something. I mean, we're all slightly nerdy for being wikipedians, man, but get over yourself. And I saw nothing on WP:ISNOT that applies to this list. I think you're stretching the rules to facilitate your deletion-happy view of what wiki should be. I'll be adding to this list and hopefully other people will too. Sorry if this is too personal for an afd discussion, but you've taken this crusade upon yourself and I find it hard to believe that you have any time to practice your music if you're always trying to delete something on wiki.70.226.157.116 21:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, then, you should make some effort to understand my objections rather than positng further patronising comments. Did I say I was not interested in songs in triple metre? No. Actually I am. I am a singer, I am interested in songs. I am interested in music of all kinds, and as a long-time Brubeck fan I am particularly interested in music in unusual time signatures. What I object to is a list which makes no attempt to set out why it should be any more interesting than the list of things on the second shelf up at Waitrose. An article on triple metre, noting why it is unusual in certain genres and pointing out notable examples, would be interesting. I'm not going to write that because I have little knowledge of songs written since about 1940, and insufficient knowledge of the various current genres to make an informed comment. I might well contribute to such an article in the areas about which I do have knowledge. But this is just a list of songs in an arbitrary metre which makes no attempt to establish why such a list might be of any interest or relevance. If it aims to be a complete list of all songs written in 3/4 since a given date, it is pointless as it will always be both incomplete and out of date. If it's a list of notable songs in that time, in some arbitrary genres, what defines the genres which are included or not included? Who is going to look for or read this article, and with what purpose in mind? WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. And I am not "deletion happy", I have voted keep on several AfD votes. I have also voted delete on an article I contributed myself! I really cannot see that a list of some of the songs in a given metre, which fails to establish why being in that metre is itself notable, and which makes no retence to completeness, is a useful addition to Wikipedia. Far better to document why 3/4 is unusual, and give a list of interesting or notable examples. That would be encyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. Xoloz 17:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick perusal of the List of lists pages shows many lists that make no attempt at completeness i.e. Czech writers, businesses, books- books for crying out loud! Would you say that since the list of books is always going to be incomplete that you might as well not have it at all? I hope not. This page here can be tagged with a "this list is incomplete, please add to it, etc" disclaimer that I see all over wiki. And there is nothing about this list that makes it inherently arbitrary. It willl be as inclusive or specific as users care to make it. I don't think that 'WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information' applies here. The criteria for inclusion (triple meter) might potentially (hopefully) lead to a huge number songs eventually being included, but it is not arbitrary. Now, if someone proposed making a list of songs in common time, I would be first in line to say that it was a horrible idea. But 3/4 and 6/8 combined make up only a drop in the ocean of common time. Being a musician Just zis Guy, you know?, I hope you can understand that it might be nice for a fledgling musician to have a list with a wide variety of songs to choose from in order to master a fairly common, yet often much overlooked time signature. Please go to List of lists and start counting the number of lists (and all the thousands of hours of work that those lists represent) you would have to delete from wiki if you held them all to the same criteria that you're trying to hold this list to.144.92.184.55 00:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious discussion of this is underway. Many man-hours worth of unencyclopedic content may go. If you know any list you think unencyclopedic, nominate it at AfD. We will not keep unencyclopedic content under the argument that there is other unencyclopedic we have removed yet. Xoloz 03:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, good question "Would you say that since the list of books is always going to be incomplete that you might as well not have it at all?". Answer: yes. That list is even more unencyclopaedic than this one. The number of books is as close to infinite as makes no difference, so the list here is actually the list of books whichi people who could be bothered to update the page, have heard of and can be bothered to add to the list. Utterly pointless, unencyclopaedic and POV in that its selection criteria are completely arbitrary. I'm with Xoloz, these lists can go on user pages or some other place. Along with all the fancruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I have found this page very useful. It could be improved, but heck that's what's a Wiki is for. I've Googled for ages and found nothing as comprehensive. Since the distinction between 6/8 and 3/4 is rather subjective it makes sense to keep the 'triple meter' grouping but thbe page would be more useful if it at least attempted to tag songs to one or the other (or 12/8, another triple metre, for that matter, used in the massive hit Everybody Hurts by REM). So I've added that :-) SNG

Triple metre article[edit]

I have created a stub article on triple metre. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone has now linked this article from triple metre - which rather misses the point. The problem with this article is that it makes no attempt to be encyclopaedic (for example, it does not state its inclusion criteria). I created triple metre as a place where the fact of it being unusual could be discussed, and as a way of avoiding this unencyclopaedic list. Gaaah! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list now includes at least one example from every year between 1990 and the present and at least five people have contributed and I hope many more will start. I tagged this article with the dynamic list disclaimer, so now EVERYONE will know that it isn't complete, as if anyone with enough interest to read it wouldn't know that already. It DOES state its inclusion criteria (Songs in triple meter!) but Just zis Guy, you know? claims over and over again that it doesn't. The criteria could lead to a long list, but that doesn't mean that there are no criteria (and excessive length is a 'problem' easily dealt with). And if by unencyclopedic you mean it wouldn't be found in a paper dictionary then, so what. Go find Modest Mouse, Capitol Records, Seinfeld, Rock, Paper, Scissors, or Honda in a paper dictionary. I think these are all things worthy of inclusion, but you feel that the space limitations (not to mention hard editorial choices conderning space vs. inclusiveness) of a paper encyclopedia should apply to an electronic one. The inclusiveness is what most wikis love and you don't get it. I think this is a major flaw in your view of wiki. I know you're gonna have some super-smart reply with this, but I don't care...I'm done butting heads with you. It was fun for a while...no, it was fun for YOU...I was just trying to save a worthwhile list from being erased. I'll let wiki voters look at the article, see if they think it has merit, and decide from there. Ta Ta144.92.184.70 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is completely arbitrary. The wider the timescale you assign, the more incomplete and unencyclopaedic it becomes! We've already had one erroneously attributed (12/8 is comopund double metre not triple). I don't see any point to it. Sorry, but that's just how it is. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:17, 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 Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sougen Yujisawa[edit]

  • Delete, apparently not WP:V: [38]... Google suggests "Sougen Fujisawa" [39] which generates hits but none seem to have any relationship to this article. "Sougen Kujisawa Wild Card Fighter" comes up empty as well [40]. I plan on checking J-List later; but I'm at work so that will have to wait. This appears to be an unpublished project. Kappa suggested this for AfD on the Wild Card Fighter AfD discussion... not that it has any bearing here; I've just never seen him suggest and AfD before!  ;)--Isotope23 17:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty NN. Devotchka 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be part of a not-as-yet-published project. TECannon 07:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Nicholas Pre-School Playgroup[edit]

non-encyclopedic advertisement for a non-notable institution --DrTorstenHenning 08:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hm, why is this an 'ad' - seems verifiable and NPOV to me. Question - is non-notability a deletion criterion? --Doc (?) 08:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: verifiable (nice to see the OFSTED registration being used here), NPOV, useful. Oh, and no: non-notability is not officially a deletion criterion. Unfortunately we seem to have been suffering a bit of functionality creep as a result of which articles get nominated because the nominator has never heard of the subject…seems to me that an encyclopedia should contain many, many articles on subjects any individual reader has never encountered. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 09:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is someone trying to make a point here? If non-notability is a criterion for speedy deletion in the case of people, then non-notability in the case of (very small) groups of people should be a criterion for deletion. And I do not think I have to have a first-hand encounter with twenty-one pre-school children to assess their notability, or rather lack of notability. --DrTorstenHenning 09:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The CSD for nn-bios of people is intended to solve the problem of people creating user pages in the main namespace, or mistaking this for a personal webhost and posting their personal details as an article. It is not intended to make it easier to get rid of allegedly non-notable information in general. — Haeleth Talk 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this was an obscure quantum physics term or ethnic music group, maybe we could talk about systemic bias against certain subjects. But this is a pre-school playgroup, and childcare is hardly an obscure topic. There is a difference between a subject which most people don't know about, like quantum physics and ethnic music genres, and a subject which most people don't want to know about, like playgroups in a certain area. This falls into the latter category, being of no interest to anyone except parents in the playgroup's area (which places it even more firmly in the ad category). --Last Malthusian 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, advertising, non-encyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement. Dlyons493 Talk 09:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and this would be identical to literally thousands upon thousands of other hypothetical articles about playgroups. And dear God, please don't say pre-school groups are automatically notable now. --Last Malthusian 10:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 'tis not an ad. FireFox 10:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a preschool playgroup. Web forums with more users and bands with more fans are deleted each and every day. I can't imagine how this specific playgroup would ever be an encyclopedic subject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, it's not an advertisement – I trust User:Doc glasgow enough to be sure he'd never write an ad – but it is unencyclopaedic. Phil, notability is a subset of encyclopaediality, so you can drop that "delete voters are ignoring the rules!" canard right now. And if you could refrain from accusing those who argue in good faith for deletion of only voting delete because we haven't heard of the subject, that would be nice, too. And as for Doc glasgow's innocent-sounding comment ... you should both know better than this! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK - I'm going to get some stick for this - so I've put an explanation on my talk page. But to keep the debate going - keep. --Doc (?) 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - test a case perhaps - but not make a point - since I'm not sure what point I'd be trying to make. --Doc (?) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stu 12:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. even though non-notability may not be an official criterion for deletion it doesn't mean that "votes" to delete based on that criterion are somehow wrong.--Kewp (t) 12:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Robin Johnson 12:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless this article was created as a WP:POINT (I WP:AGF). Articles that no one has interest in are not created. Articles that are not verifiable are not allowed. The intersection of articles people have interest in and that are verifiable are articles that should be included. Clearly, this article is in that intersection, given that I have verified it via the linked website and it was created. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that argument's just not true. Plenty of vanity articles deleted on AfD are 'verifiable'. A small website, or a forum/Usenet posting, or even an article in the local paper can all 'verify' the existence of a non-notable person - all those apply to me just for starters. But we delete them anyway because we do, in fact, consider articles which are devoid of interest to anyone but the people concerned unfit for Wikipedia. --Last Malthusian 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The CSD for nn-bios of people is intended to solve the problem of people creating user pages in the main namespace, or mistaking this for a personal webhost and posting their personal details as an article. It is not intended to make it easier to get rid of allegedly non-notable information in general. — Haeleth Talk 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)" Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in all conscience. I actually wanted to vote keep, but that would put me on the wrong side of WP:POINT. — Haeleth Talk 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've all forgotten to look at the talk page, haven't you? ROFL. LOL. ROFLMAO. I'm going to die laughing. -Splashtalk 13:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK - creating this was a mistake. I din't think it was a violation of WP:POINT as I wasn't making a point, but conducting an experiment (see my talk page) - and I didn't think it was really disruptive. But I am willing to accept the consensus of others that I should not have done this. The article should now be deleted (and I'd welcome someone using WP:IAR and doing so). I apologise, without reservation, to eveyone who feels I have wasted their time. --Doc (?) 13:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we can can bend WP:CSD G7 user mistake (despite some post-creation edits). --rob 13:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be too harsh on yourself. Judging by some of the responses, there are actually people in favour of giving any group of snotlings automatic notability. So I guess there'll be some genuine playgroup articles on AfD pretty soon. Hell, if yours is to be deleted under WP:POINT instead of WP:NOT, then someone could just recreate it saying it was of genuine interest. --Last Malthusian 13:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I'd been smarter, I'd have created this using a sock, then it would have stood or fallen on its merits and not on the community's reaction to my stupidity. --Doc (?) 13:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually quite an interesting point. Would the outcome of a deletion debate have favoured a creation by an unknown editor over that of an established one? It surely shouldn't, and should preferably favour neither. -Splashtalk 14:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I can't find 'breach of WP:POINT' on the deletion criteria (unless this is discuption or vandalism - in which case speedy it) it should rest on the article's (dis)merits and not the intention of the creator. But anyway.... --Doc (?) 16:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Commercial. PJM 14:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having been penitent over creating this - I don't want to be impolite. But it is NOT an ad. --Doc (?) 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OED=A public notice or announcement: now, usually, in writing ... - the article announces services offered on a commercial basis and has a link to their website. You didn't intend it as promoting them, but I can't see their advertising manager being too unhappy with what was written. If it quacks like advertising ... Anyway, that's my view and I'm not getting into a debate on the subject :-) Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quick, delete Microsoft ;)! --Doc (?) 16:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tempt me :-) And I could say (?) told me to!!! Dlyons493 Talk 18:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into a larger article about playgroups in general, maybe create a "List of Pre-School Playgroups"? TastemyHouse 14:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the least notable thing ever, as in "Mrs. Jones's Grade 8 English class"-level notable. I mean, at least some skateboarders had heard of that handrail (and we ended up keeping that). WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, or a business directory. And by the way: I'm probably more likely to vote keep on an article by an editor I know and respect, but not if it's a pre-school playgroup. Sorry. Lord Bob 14:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and ManInBlack. Book clubs, Biology 101 classes, mailing lists and on and on would have as a strong claim. Not a directory or an indiscriminate assortment of info. Marskell 15:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — RJH 15:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preceedent.Gateman1997 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the El Toro Handrail crew show up to assert notability (aka delete per Lord Bob).--Isotope23 17:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See User talk:Doc glasgow for the reasoning behind creating this article. Perhaps not quite a WP:POINT and not quite a joke, but not a serious attempt at a real article either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely to be of interest outside the local area. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is not a school but it is a oftsed registered charity so why erase this Yuckfoo 18:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of very localised geographical importance only, Wikipedia is not yellow pages. Average Earthman 20:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, or a business directory. --Stormie 23:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stormie. --Metropolitan90 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn local playgroup ferhevvinsake. MCB 01:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a school, not even a preschool but a playgroup within a preschool? No, keeping articles about things of this detail level becomes silly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any salvageable information into an article for St Nicholas Primary School. This is a test, this is only a test. Had this been an article for an actual school, the article would be kept. Silensor 19:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please feel free to incorporate any additional information into the new St Nicholas Primary School article. Silensor 19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunatori.com[edit]

Advertising. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an ad. Devotchka 01:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the importance in engineering and technology/science. (unsigned by 24.201.105.251)
  • Keep Canuck 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, 24.201.105.251 is the poster of the article, and Canuck is an apparent sock-puppet by same IP. Devotchka 02:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's also a copyvio. -- Kjkolb 02:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. User:24.201.105.251 who created this advertising article has twice removed the AfD tag. I left a note on his talk page prior to the second removal but he may not have seen it. What's the procedure if he removes the AfD tag again? I don't want to get into a 3RR situation Moriori 02:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An advertisement.—Bitmappity 02:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio per Kjkolb. --JJay 02:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under A8. Uploader has been notified. Alphax τεχ 05:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, or delete as advertising if their legal department releases the text under the GFDL. Certainly not a speedy; how they could conceivably be mistaken for a commercial content provider is beyond me. (You also forgot to blank the content.) —Cryptic (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read the criteria? It's a copyvio detected within 48 hours, so it's definately speediable. And yes, I should have blanked it. Alphax τεχ 07:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have read the criteria. You clearly have not. How is this a commercial content provider? —Cryptic (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and speedy if possible. - 09:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. --Optichan 15:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising (copyright violation seems to be an indirect justification) CarbonCopy 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ads and vanity.--->Newyorktimescrossword 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superboland[edit]

Article concerns chat room at a filesharing site. Claims not to be a vanity article. Looks like vanity to me and also NN with 3 google hits JJay 13:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per gluttonforpunishment. he feels that this article is informative and constructive.
  • Keep Recury is a traitor to the cause.
  • Keep per your mom.
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 13:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definite vanity article. Devotchka 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The lady doth protest to much" about her vanity article --Reflex Reaction 17:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It may be a world famous chat room, but its still just a chat room. Recury 22:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. -- Karada 22:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- GeeCee 09:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per phinny. he used this article for a book report.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving Veterans of the Second World War[edit]

  • DeleteThere are more than 3.5 million surviving veterans of WWII in the U.S. alone. Including all nations involved, total number of 'surviving veterans' likely exceeds 10 million.

WWI veterans had to wait 80 years before France started recognizing "surviving" veterans as something notable even as a group, let alone one individual.

Also, if the individuals listed are notable, then isn't that redundant? Aren't they already listed in Wikipedia for what they're known for?

  • Delete, better handled by category. Gazpacho 22:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Gazpacho. If the list is just their names, there's not much point. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Unnecessary and redundant. Devotchka 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this would be better handled by a category. Jacqui ★ 06:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCDe✉ 00:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Eldora Parade[edit]

Not signed yet. So do they warrant an entry on Wikipedia? --Wonderfool 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NMG by a wide margin. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 18:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Howcheng. TheMadBaron 19:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Howcheng and TheMadBaron Tedernst 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claims heavy media coverage, but 729 google hits for "Eldora Parade" suggests the opposite. Delete. Punkmorten 20:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte per howcheng Newyorktimescrossword 19:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete, they have been featured by the BBC, and most definitely 'have become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city' - Bournemouth


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. That's a horribly bloated, messy article, but this is an encyclopedic topic. Fix the article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jim Rome Show[edit]

Cleanup I started this article, and now I'm ashamed I did. This has ballooned into something very unencyclopedic and overblown. It needs to be trimmed and cleaned up. Zpb52 02:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh... if you want it cleaned up, why are you bringing it up for deletion, then? You really should use the appropriate {{clean-up}} tag instead, for example. (In any case, since it is now up for deletion, I vote keep; the subject certainly appears to deserve an article of its own.) -- Captain Disdain 02:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{clean-up}} accomplishes nothing. --Zpb52 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...okay. -- Captain Disdain 02:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, if no one cleans it up, 'clean-up' accomplishes nothing. But posting it as a 'delete' when you really just want it to be cleaned up...that's really pointless. Please don't misuse tags. Devotchka 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or even Speedy Keep since it wasn't intended as a delete. Devotchka 02:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep since this wasn't intended to be a deletion request. 23skidoo 03:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. There is an enormous amount of information in the article of interest to fans only. Nonetheless, it is notable enough for an article. Capitalistroadster 03:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep since, frankly, I find it one of the most interesting, enlightening, and complete article I see. Also, I don't see Zpb52 making any effort to save his own page. When I created my first page, I closely monitored it, and have edited it for content. Frankly, I want it to stay as it is. For one thing, it provides information for new clones, and helps them understand the show. Second, its detail is unsurpassed. Finally, participation is through the roof. If you're going to delete it, you'll have undone the work of literally dozens of readers and listeners. This isn't some obscure cartoon or late night show. This is 'the' place to learn about the show. You are going to kill your own baby without trying to fix it? Get a life. If you delete this page, I will quit this site. --Saxonjf 04:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. None of the above are reasons for keeping the page. Also, refrain from the personal attacks. It's not the way to earn respect on Wikipedia. --Zpb52 04:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, since you brought that up, neither is nominating a perfectly valid article for deletion not because you want it deleted but because you want it cleaned up but can't be bothered to do it yourself or even use the existing Wikipedia tools, such as {{cleanup}} or submitting the article to the Cleanup Taskforce. I also see that you posted "This article is getting out of hand. If we don't trim some fat, it could wind up on the VfD list." to the article's talk page, which leads me to believe that you aren't quite familiar with the deletion process in general and the deletion policy in particular. I mean no offense here, but this is really very, very much the wrong way of going about getting an article improved. -- Captain Disdain 07:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep But only if it's cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantecubed (talk • contribs) UTC 05:00, 28 October 2005
  • Keep and tag for cleanup. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for cleanup. There needs to be a distinction here between what is apropriate for an encyclopedic article, and what is appropriate for a Jim Rome Show fansite. Currently, the article is too far towards the latter. If someone wants to take a copy of the article as is and throw it up on a Geocities page as a the world's best Jim Rome fansite, then no power in the world can stop them, but Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. --Clay Collier 07:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and give the nominator a virtual slap for being a lazy so-and-so. —Phil | Talk 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MQ[edit]

(Note until 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC) this was page was malformed, it had no header. As a result it was probably overlooked by many AfDers. If this does not get sufficient attention, the closing admin might consider relisting. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete Advertising-Dakota 03:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete advertising-like, but the topic is The Koala and the article is The MQ, no reason for existing. Pete.Hurd 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Nymphs[edit]

nn band and vanity Gator(talk) 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.Gator(talk) 21:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Since they were signed to a major label, and the singer Inger Lorre seems to have an ongoing career, I think it escapes delete. PJM 21:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - really scrapes the edge of the guidelines in WP:MUSIC: one album and one EP on Geffen, lead singer went on to release one album on indie label Triple X. I can't offer a keep or a delete recommendation for this one. --Stormie 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, OK, I still think they're scraping the edge of notability, but the expansion of the article ties them to enough other significant bands to make it a worthy encyclopedia topic. --Stormie 08:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Nymph. Radiant_>|< 00:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Borderline case for WP:MUSIC, but the article as rewritten looks good enough for me, so keep. Radiant_>|< 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:NMG Allmusic.com has an article on them see [41]. Completed a national tour when Lorre's boyfriend died of an overdose see [42]. Lorre is also notable for urinating on the A&R man's desk at Geffen Records when their producer was taken to work on Guns N' Roses Use Your Illusion albums and the incident received a lot of publicity. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article to hopefully establish notability. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. TheMadBaron 09:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable: album with major label, mention in Rolling Stone, relevent to other notable bands. No sweat. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a nod to Capitalroadster. -- DS1953 talk 20:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ditto Alf melmac 17:42, 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. – ABCDe✉ 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Riots[edit]

Administrators: AfD page being heavily vandalised and re-edited. Faster the delete of obvious band-vanity page happens, the better.—Gaff ταλκ 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a fun group of kids having a good time, but unsigned band = band vanity = delete. —Gaff ταλκ 00:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I HATE BAND VANITY! It's not notable and a waste of space. Newyorktimescrossword 19:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing on Allmusic, unimpressive googles, and no sourcable claim of notability in the article. Also, vandalizing an AFD instead of presenting arguments is a pretty good negative indicator. -Colin Kimbrell 03:28, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Team[edit]

Supposedly a movie to be released in 2007 and starring Tobey Maguire among others. Reading the the greatest film of the year (2007). proclamation in the lead and the plot(??) of an unreleased film made me suspicious. A google search, imdb title search, imdb 2007 title search and Tobey Maguire's entry at IMDB do not turn up any info on the movie. The page history shows all the anons contributing to the article have contributed to only the article or other edits related to the article. Pamri • Talk 12:25, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom powell[edit]

Nonsense or vanity

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tpska[edit]

just a link to some silly webpage -Andrew 17:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Andrew 17:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, not encyclopedic --Bachrach44 18:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a town-name from some vowel-deprived area of Eastern Europe. Delete. A2Kafir 21:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A3. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

its not a silly webpage its my site one of my members made this I only found it after a web search

[email protected]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, leaning towards merge. (3k, 1d, 5m) - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trafficking of women in and from Kosovo[edit]

Kosovo is under United Nations control and there are 17,000 NATO troops and 2,000 international policemen. In presence of this international body Kosovo can not be a more appropriate place for crimes than a country like Serbia, where only Serbs rule.

I do not hold that there is no crime in Kosovo, but not in that stage that should occupy entire pages of an encyclopedia. I think it is more valuable to write about Serbian genocide in Kosovo rather than trying to discredit UN, NATO, USA and EU.

I think Wikipedia should consider the fact that pages that contain information about Kosovo are often out of NPV because of Slavic tendencies to present UNMIK as an dictatorship founder.--Epirus 04:02, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant gang[edit]

Appears unverifiable hoax, nn, vanity for "youth gang" delete. —Gaff ταλκ 01:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:43, 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 Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UnderPod[edit]

Neologism.--Shanel 03:01, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underpodcast[edit]

Non-notable neologism. -- Captain Disdain 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. (I suppose it could also be merged, but I really don't think it's a notable term.) -- Captain Disdain 02:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable today, but perhaps it may be in the near future. (unsigned by 64.247.254.154)
  • Then it can definitely be added in the near future. Until then, it shouldn't have an article. (Last comment by was by author of the article.) Devotchka 03:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable-Dakota 03:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Gazpacho 04:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough, we'll have to wait and see if it becomes notable. Underpod 06:24, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in linguistics[edit]

This isn't a list of unsolved problems in linguistics (and even if it were it would be unmaintainable), it's just a rather POV statement about the nature of language isolates. I see no potential for growth into a useful encyclopedia article. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like a weirdly matter-of-fact article. Devotchka 20:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: both of our pages have just been vandalized and I'm not even sure how... Devotchka 20:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have absolutely nothing of use to say re: this particular AfD, but if you're talking about babelboxes, a vandal changed the templates earlier. If that's what it was, it wasn't related to you personally, nor this AfD. Jacqui ★ 06:03, 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. Psy guy (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana Shiva[edit]

Article is unencyclopaediac and reads like an essay 61.1.145.236

  • Keep, sounds like a possible case for Wikipedia:cleanup, not deletion. Kappa 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been up since 2002 and it just now qualify for an AfD. Also this users only edits have been to today's AfD page, this AfD, the Vandana Shiva article and this error [44] CambridgeBayWeather 09:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 444,000 Googles. Very poor Afd nomination. Dlyons493 Talk 09:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep .She is such a famous personality,Wiki will be very incomplete without her.--Sahodaran 11:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It just needs a clean-up. PJM 14:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article looks encyclopediac enough to my eyes. Does not seem to be much in need of even clean-up. Needs perhaps more content. Surprised to see it put up as Afd; perhaps needs to be expanded rather. However I don't know very much about her and am too lazy to research something to expand the article. I remember the first time i read something by her; it was the text of a first-class antiglob. speech she made somewhere--South Africa, the international women's court--really not sure if that's correct; reproduced in the Hindu sunday magazine something like.. mm.. 5 or 6 years ago. i think --Pournami
  • Strong keep bad faith nomination --Reflex Reaction 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:BIO. Notable activist recognised by UN awards. Could an administrator please look at Speedy Keeping this as the concensus of the community on this article is pretty clear. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable racist. Gazpacho 21:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Tintin 00:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. utcursch | talk 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and clean up. Jacqui ★ 05:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- --Bhadani 12:09, 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 Speedy Delete by DragonflySixtyseven as copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vavamuffin[edit]

Possible NN; no match found at allmusic.com. No opinion yet. PJM 12:04, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Escobar[edit]

Probably nn writer; Google finds no relevant hits ([45]).

  • Delete Nineteen year-old who is not yet notable (and won't be if she's now at the pinical of her career). Dlyons493 Talk 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty entertaining entry, though. Devotchka 05:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. While there is an Argentian author by the name of Victoria Escobar see [46], I doubt that the woman referred to in the article is her. A Google search comes up with little else of interest see [47] and a search for her as a writer comes up empty. The article cites no actual works that she has written other than claiming she has touched the hearts of "Manny". Manny might be disappointed at the deletion of her article. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, come on. Did you guys even consider her sotry-lines? OK, OK, Delete, but at least I bothered to fix the typos. Might as well have presentable garbage if it's going to be up there for 5 days, huh? --DavidConrad 06:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that's what "sotry" meant. I was thinking it was a misspelling of "sultry". Not that that makes a lot of sense in context, but that hardly refutes the idea, does it? --Trovatore 02:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under A7 for a non-notable bio that makes no claim of notability. Unpublished author, unverifiable, might as well through WP:NOR in the mix as well. No opposition to an actual article on the published author though. Alphax τεχ 06:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, if "influential novelist", "critically acclaimed", and "has touched the lives of many" are not claims of notability, what the hell would be? This is a delete, but it sure isn't a speedy. — Haeleth Talk
  • Delete Hahahahah! ahem. nn Dxco 06:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. — Haeleth Talk 13:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax (based on current content). Influential, critically acclaimed novelists who have touched the lives of many generally have at least one book in print, particularly if they are contemporary (the article says she was born in 1986). The only Victoria Escobar known to the book department at Amazon.com is the one found by Capitalistroadster, whose only book was published in 1995 (when our Victoria was 9 years old) and is now out of print. I doubt that the Victoria Escobar who wrote "El sexto hombre" is notable, but this article is not about her and I'm not calling her a hoax. --Metropolitan90 00:13, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walterclough Hall[edit]

Copied from [48], a personal genealogy site. The Website doesn't appear to be a commercial venture and anyway genealogy sites purposefully exist to spread information so copyright may not be as much of an issue. At any rate, it's still a genealogy-related article that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia, and editors with a better working knowledge of WP's copyright policies may also wish to evaluate. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this thing was built in 1375 or something. Kappa 17:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it needs to be cleaned up some. Devotchka 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Connected with Emily Bronte. CalJW 22:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Historic building with significant connections to notable author. Notable building but copyvio of source nominated by Katefan0. Copyright status needs to be cleaned up. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the author of this article, and while I did consult the above web page, the amount of material I used is miniscule. In fact the duplicate material on that page IS credited to me and was extracted from a private email of mine to the author of that page, so how is this a copyright issue? I have just asked that author to remove the same from his web site. -- jgk168421 29 October 2005 (AEST)
  • Keep building with long and notable history, but clean up. -- DS1953 talk 21:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The material on the aforementioned web page has been removed as IT was in breach of MY copyright as the author. A limited amount has been retained, with my permission, where it refers directly to the contents of that page's family tree. I consider the aforementioned copyright problem to be now resolved. -- jgk168421 13:13, 2 November 2005 (AEST)
  • Note Information is not copyrightable. So if someone has data on a webpage about such-and-such place being built in 1386 or that Harry Schmoodle lived there, that information is not protectable. Text is copyrightable, but the underlying information and facts are not. 207.69.137.36 21:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted Clan[edit]

Bandvanity, self-recorded.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 05:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn vanity. Self-published, released nothing. Dxco 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TECannon 14:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:15, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weycrest[edit]

Non notable internet provider, article is essentially an advert. Or is this a speedy delete under A4? Thanks/wangi 11:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noticed, the links to terms like web hosting were linkspam, I've made them proper Wikilinks. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:25, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Card Fighter[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, almost an A1 candidate, and the only google hit I get for "Wild Card Fighter" Sougen 404s. —Cryptic (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Devotchka 05:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to even figure out the topic. As above, I can't find any concrete (or even vague) reference that clues me in. Dxco 06:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy under A1. What exactly is this? Alphax τεχ 07:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Sougen with this. Kappa 09:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 09:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which part of "above"? Kappa 09:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please point me in the direction of anything outside of Wikipedia that will tell me more about this topic? What publishing company put out Wild Card Fighter? Was it published under any other names? If it is not a published work, it does not belong on Wikipedia yet. TECannon 16:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That part, ok. Kappa 16:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone should AFD Sougen Yujisawa, seems like a personal project [49] Kappa 16:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not WP:V. Probable unpublished personal project... and if it is indeed related to the link Kappa posted, I'd urge that person to get some counciling if they have not already done so.--Isotope23 17:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:16, 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 speedied under criteria a7: non-notable bio. Joyous (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wombosi[edit]

Vanity page. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - --Jtalledo (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither an industry insider or a person of any inherent importance, Thanks, that makes it easy. Devotchka 01:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total vanity.
  • Delete with thanks to the authors for including the deletion criteria in the article :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism Prashanthns 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhur RC Cathedral[edit]

This place does not exist! -- Necrothesp 19:37, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woolery Left Wheel[edit]

Delete. Unencyclopedic --Zpb52 02:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Don't know what it did say, but it's a bunch of gibberish now. Devotchka 02:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Anonymous user vandalized page immediately after posting of VfD. The original version has been restored. --Zpb52 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: There are numerous instances of this on Google; the original version can probably be merged into Wheel of Fortune. Make my vote Merge for now. Devotchka 02:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neologism. -- Grev -- Talk 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism Tedernst 20:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Apparently "Woolery left Wheel" is a sarcastic comment used to mean "that's old news", but it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. In the alternative, merge into Chuck Woolery. --Metropolitan90 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenonsense and outrageous. --->Newyorktimescrossword 19:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under A7. – Alphax τεχ 05:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XxGuitarFreakxX[edit]

Entry for a member of a forum—Bitmappity 02:14, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zacariah Cutcliffe[edit]

Unsourced, seemingly a prank. —Seselwa 21:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Googled with one hit which was a dead link. Prank.--Dakota 21:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and maybe even speedy as nonsense - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably worth a speedy, yeah. Devotchka 22:33, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zemax[edit]

Delete. Apparent advertisment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm35173 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-28 15:06:53 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_28&oldid=1081093499"