Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

Purge server cache

October 29[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 keep. --Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Donahue[edit]

Some occultist crank with a weekly internet broadcast and a minor role in a B-movie. Pilatus 03:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I guess. The movie role is IMDB-verified, but apparently quite minor (he's almost at the bottom of the cast list). However, if the media appearances are correct, then he's probably worth an article. Will consider change of vote if the article's claims are untrue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In Search Of, where he appeared once, ran more than 20 years ago, and does appearing in a minor role (credited somewhere between Prosecutor #2 and Gospel Singer #1) warrant an entry here? Pilatus 12:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's some ungrammatical sentences in the article, and it definitely needs a copyedit, but he appears to play a major part on In Search Of. The fact it ran over 20 years ago is irrelevant. Also, he was credited as Remote Viewer in Suspect Zero according to IMDB, so it wouldn't be a stretch to think they chose him to play the part because they knew about his work in remote viewing. - Mgm|(talk) 18:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. aaron c. donahue has proven his worth as a remote viewer, the many predictions he has made are accurate. but thats not what this is about. aaron played a minor role in a movie, in the search off and on tv asahi in japan, he was on coast to coast a few times see coast to coast tv asahi and in search off and on a internet based radio show called ghostly talk.(you have to scroll down a bit) he has his own online radio show. which broadcasts continously, featuring his shows and music. there are over 30 recordings of his shows, and he is know among people on the internet. the luciferian movement has there own luciferian yahoo group, who have over 230 members. they have there own dating site, which is not very good (my opinion of course). and a news site, forum, chat and numerous spinoff sites like luciferian rvg. if any one is interresting i could post more links but i am not advertising, the fact is that many people know aaron and are familiar with luciferianism. there is a luciferian community, aaron is resposible for its creation, and he has made enough public apearences both on tv and radio to justify a article about him. if the size about the article is the probleme i could do something about that, but mind you i am not a native english speaker. i am dutch and i do not control the english language to such a degree, that i am able to make a lot of good wikipedia articles.


Keep! There is an entire community started by him. All of the above is true, and the media files to prove it are available for download at http://ummo.cc/ or http://www.radioaaron.com/


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Presley[edit]

Vanity, barely notable. Aaron Presley doesn't seem to be wholly unnotable, but in my view the article hugely exaggerates his notability. Aecis 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete The only other contribution from 66.166.58.115 is a vandalism on Judith Miller page, which has been reverted. The only other addition to Aaron Presley page is by Sonicreducers who is not active anymore. Prashanthns 18:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Aaron Presley is a familiar face to thousands of college students around the state of Texas. Hardly exaggerated. If anything, its underaggerated. There is plenty more that can be written about him, time permitting. Sonicreducers 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that he won second place in the "novice division of parliamentary debate" at the "Texas Intercollegiate Forensic Association Spring Tournament"? (the only thing I've found on him) Aecis 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! He's a master debater, among other things. Sonicreducers 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Google results for "That Guy Promotions". An guy famous mostly for throwing parties and getting expelled (and yes, even winning a debate award), is NN. Devotchka 23:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not verifiable; a vanity page. Sliggy 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD. There is nothing in this article that asserts notability. Capitalistroadster 23:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep' Aaron Bennett Presley is familiar to many students, not only in the state of Texas, but in many surrounding states due to his heavy involvement in IPDA Debate & NPDA Debate. That Guy has contributed to the freedom of speech to many students not strong enough to stand up for themselves.
  • Delete. nn. or texapedia. but keep the facebook group (seems a better venue). try again after you invite me to your next white party, i promise I'll dress in all white. ∴ here…♠ 09:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity. —Wayward Talk 13:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn bio, probable vanity. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nn-bio, CSD:A7. MCB 00:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lindsay[edit]

It seems like a vanity page to me. 69.81.252.232 21:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep but add cleanup tag - he makes IMDB [1] but does not seem particularly notable - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I doubt there's much info out there about Alex, but being a digital effects artist for Industrial Light & Magic on Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace is notable in my book. He just happens to be behind the scenes. - Mgm|(talk) 22:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Rizzuto[edit]

Article created by vandal 68.224.161.219 (talk · contribs). Fails google test. All google hits return Wikipedia mirror sites as a source. Viriditas | Talk 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN vanity. Devotchka 23:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 13:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vote Keep because her band Mulberry Lane meets WP:MUSIC. Since we currently have no article on Mulberry Lane, this can't be merged anywhere. BUT: I don't know if Rizzuto is her real name. AllMusic only calls her Allie, and the official site only calls her Allie Kat. Punkmorten 13:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment. After comparing the link to Mulberry Lane with WP:MUSIC, I must unfortunately conclude that both Allison Rizzuto and Mulberry Lane do not meet the criteria established for notability. If you think that they do, please provide further information. Additionally, there is no way to document the information in the article. --Viriditas | Talk 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've never heard of her, but we get something on her band, keep it. The Republican 13:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't verify information in the article, and neither the musician nor the band meet the notability criteria for WP:MUSIC. The band has not released two or more albums on a major label (per WP:MUSIC) as their first album was self-released. --Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT Marskell 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crossing 2[edit]

This game hasn't been announced. There are no facts whatsoever in this article, just speculation. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect back to Animal Crossing. Even the article itself admits it's all speculation at this point. Not encyclopedic or verifiable yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Mgm|(talk) 22:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Devotchka 23:13, 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 as nomination is withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary[edit]

dictdef KeepKappa's edit Dlyons493 Talk 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Already in Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could possibly have speedily deleted? - Magnus Holmgren 13:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randomly select some method of disposition.  BD2412 talk 14:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've replace the definition with a {{wi}} tag. There are a lot of inbound links to this thing [2], so I think randomly disposing of it might not be appropriate. Kappa 17:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an appropriate method of disposal. Keep in this form. - Mike Rosoft 17:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa's rewrite. Well done to him for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the talk page: "Hi, this is basejumper123 and this article can be deleted. I wrote it to fill a non-functional link, but it really should be in wiktionary" ... I also suggest deletion.  ALKIVAR™ 23:51, 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 and CLEAN UP. — JIP | Talk 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At Your Service[edit]

  • Delete. This page contains indirect advertisement/campaign/propaganda/promotion of the TV program by using direct assault to a defunct show of GMA_Network's archrival ABS-CBN, Hoy Gising. This should deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.174.29 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, program on a major network. Kappa 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: removed the dig at Hoy! Gising. No opinion - it looks as if it might be notable but I'll leave that to those in its catchment area. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, as notable broadcast program. I suggest nominator clean it up, since he/she seems to know what this is all about, whereas the article as it is is nearly incomprehensible out of context, and is presently a copyvio of [3].
  • Keep and cleanup: I don't think there is something wrong with the show. It may look like an indirect advertisement but I think that the show really does the things that are in the article. But then, it needs cleanup.- User: Reviewgirlerika
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atgeflu[edit]

Article describes Pope Atgeflü, a 17-year old founding father of the Church of the Exploding Sheep. This appears to be a way of entertaining classmates during A-level English lessons. Sliggy 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable, unverifiable, etc. Sliggy 14:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators cant vote Prashanthns 18:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Sorry for the strike-off in error. AfD Nominators can vote Prashanthns 18:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the relevant guideline please? Also, if no-nominator-voting is true, someone needs to update the guidance text at the foot of WP:AFD/Today, which I was following. Sliggy 18:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Sliggy 23:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is truly a amazing article whatever about the content it really shows the skill level among students that they are able to come up with a story like this. So what if it is for "entertaining classmates during A-level English lessons" we all can remember that time and i'm sure we would have liked somethink like this. GO ATGEFLU!!! kinsailor 16:06, 29 October 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete and BJAODN Even though I think that basic arithmetic should be the minimum criteria for people wanting to delete articles (2005 - 1978 = 17 / I'm sorry Sliggy go back to your seat - no icecream for you today). Besides, if you read the article it clearly states that the cult has been founded through a series of e-mails and I don't know about you but in my school they didn't have computers for A-level English (only good old-fashioned pen and paper). Besides it's the "Cult of the Exploding Sheep" not the Church. 129.31.73.9 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Page creator. Votes here only other edits. -- Sliggy 23:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utter rubbish. Lincolnite 16:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of how hilarious fans think it is, regardless of the skill, and regardless of how memorable an inside joke it may be, it's NN and not encyclopedic. Devotchka 17:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well written and funny and all. But, not notable and not encyclopediac. Good Joke. Strong DeletePrashanthns 18:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. While heads of real churches are notable, there is no evidence that he is. Possible BJAODN. Capitalistroadster 23:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is why we need a Speedy category for "obvious hoax or unencyclopedic nonsense". MCB 00:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Cable Internet[edit]

A small ISP doesn't need an encyclopedia article. -- Kjkolb 06:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 611 results on google, Sounds like advertising to me: "This makes ACI the fastest internet service provider in North America" etc Indium 10:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertising Prashanthns 15:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. The company is the main cable company for Aurora. The rest of the Greater Toronto Area is exclusively served by Rogers Cable. I've never really understood why bigwigs like Rogers (and before them Shaw Cable) never had a foothold in Aurora. That should be addressed in the article, rather than the basic corporate shpiel. --Madchester 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small ISP may not, but a small ISP run by a cable television company just might. Definitely a cleanup candidate. Madchester has a valid point about where a better article could go (well, except for the fact that some parts of the GTA -- like Oakville, frex -- are served by Cogeco.) Has some keep potential if cleaned up. Bearcat 05:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/clean up getcrunk juice 13:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keap, but this article requires cleanup. Mindmatrix 15:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - So long as this article gets a clean up to remove the advertising tones, I think it should stay. TDS (talk • contribs) 20:25, 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 merge into Alternative hip hop - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backpacker Hip-Hop[edit]

Delete and redirect to hip-hop. Less than notable sub-genre that could be adequately covered on main article. As it stands, is unverifiable —Gaff ταλκ 01:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Bloods[edit]

Non-notable gang. -- Kjkolb 06:54, 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 unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baw jawz[edit]

Poker slang dictionary definition -- Kjkolb 11:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't know that it's even a dictdef. Dlyons493 Talk 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reeks of being a neologism or joke article. - Mgm|(talk) 22:12, 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 unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogey's[edit]

non-notable bar delete Peyna 23:18, 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 unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brady lowe[edit]

  • Delete This person is not a prominant Queenslander/Australian and is not known at all. The national title won is for a little known / not widely sailed boat. Timber 12 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Public school boy vanity (TSSSC=The Southport School Sailing Club). Delete. Natgoo 23:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not sufficiently notable. Youth yachtsman from Queensland who has won an Australian youth championship. If he won an open championship or represented Australia in sailing at the Olympics, I might reconsider. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 00:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable/vanity -- Ian ≡ talk 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable/vanity (2nded)
  • Delete non-notable/vanity (3rded)
  • Delete, vanity. Snottygobble | Talk 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now 5 days old - please move to correct area.

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bu247.com[edit]

Non-notable website, possibly copy-vio (though I suspect they posted it). BrianSmithson 05:22, 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 merge into Diddy Kong Racing. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper (Diddy Kong Racing)[edit]

NN character from single game. Its a racing game. Characters are barely fleshed out enough to warrant a few lines, let alone individual pages. DooMDrat 02:05, 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 1, 2, 3....uhhhh, no consensus. (6d 54%, 1k, 3m, 1r) - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California Drivers Handbook[edit]

Delete, becuase seems irrelevant as its own article. There is a page for Department of Motor Vehicles. Could merge there?? There is no page for California Department of Motor Vehicles (which might be a good place to merge this). But that raises the question Do we need articles on the DMV of every US state?—Gaff ταλκ 02:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I could see a page detailing the different driving laws of U.S. states. This page is unnecessary, though. Devotchka 02:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no potential here. Gazpacho 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than describing an error on the handbook cover, there is no real content other than that this is the drivers' handbook for California. Encyclopedic articles should give more information than could be guessed by looking at the title (see WP:CSD A3). --Metropolitan90 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eadem. --Avery W. Krouse 07:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This booklet must have been printed up in millions of copies and been read by very many. Do drivers handbooks face more serious challenges towards inclusion than other books? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominator suggests. Radiant_>|< 12:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new page California Department of Motor Vehicles per nom. Do we need articles on the DMV of every US state? Well, for as long as we're going to have formulaic articles that regurgitate census information on "cities" with fewer than 150 inhabitants, ISTM that state DsMV are well above the bar for inclusion. — Haeleth Talk 14:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete I know that Wikipedia isn't paper, but still... Roodog2k (Hello there!) 18:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic - why would anyone come here looking for that? Tedernst 21:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to driver's license, and make sure there's a brief mention of drivers' handbooks in general in that article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Haeleth, except to note that, while we may not need an article on every state's DMV, the California DMM is the "grandaddy of them all" in the senses that it is the source of nearly all DMV jokes, and that pop-culture calls the DMV "the DMV" no matter what the actual agency is in the state (e.g., "PennDOT" in PA is used almost exclusively to refer to the (alleged) highway maintenance functions, while the licensure agency is usually referred to as DMV despite the utter lack of any such Department in that Commonwealth). --Kgf0 23:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CareerLauncher[edit]

appears to be advertising. orphaned & dead-end Gsd97jks 14:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caschera[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion about a month ago; the previous debate is here.

The same arguments hold true. Sources can be found only for "Caschera" being a surname, and we don't generally keep surnames. Despite repeated requests, the anonymous editor who asserts that the Caschera were a "group of legandary figures" "accredited with the founding of Brocco" has failed to come up with credible sources. Please see the talk page for the discussion. Keep The Murgatroyd reference is real. I have a copy right in front of me. Page 98 talks about the characters. How do you assume a hoax when there is evidence and references made about them throughout classical history; please see suetonius and plutarch. Pliatas has his heart on killing the story, for some reason we can not figure out. Most other sources are in Italian. They are mentioned heavily thorughout the history of Sora. Given that this is not considered a major city today, you wont find many of these books, nor will they be in English. The locations are real, and the history is also real. There is a monument in the town attested to the Cascheras. Also, lets not forget that this is more likely a legend rather than historical fact. If it is history, it was most likely written several years after the fact. Similar to the stories of Romulus and Remus, which can actually vary according to Author. A set of twins who were raised by a she wolf is very unlikely. Italians, especially ancient Romans and other mediterraneans love to come up with aetiological stories. What other cedible sources would you like? Go to the area ask a native, they will tell you. I find it a bit hilarious that wikipedia can be so ignorant and stubborn about this story. By not allowing this story, we are limiting our users' knowledge of ancient and possibly even mythological history. So per WP:V this ought to go. Pilatus 14:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my previous Keep vote was predicated on the claimed Murgatroyd reference being validated. That now appears to have been a hoax. Don't generally like renominations so soon but like keeping hoaxes even less. Dlyons493 Talk 14:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Old text unverifiable, new text unencyclopedic. — Haeleth Talk 23:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Murgatroyd reference is real. I have a copy right in front of me. Page 98 talks about the characters. How do you assume a hoax when there is evidence and references made about them throughout classical history; please see suetonius and plutarch. Pliatas has his heart on killing the story, for some reason we can not figure out. Most other sources are in Italian. They are mentioned heavily thorughout the history of Sora. Given that this is not considered a major city today, you wont find many of these books, nor will they be in English. The locations are real, and the history is also real. There is a monument in the town attested to the Cascheras. Also, lets not forget that this is more likely a legend rather than historical fact. If it is history, it was most likely written several years after the fact. Similar to the stories of Romulus and Remus, which can actually vary according to Author. A set of twins who were raised by a she wolf is very unlikely. Italians, especially ancient Romans and other mediterraneans love to come up with aetiological stories. What other cedible sources would you like? Go to the area ask a native, they will tell you. I find it a bit hilarious that wikipedia can be so ignorant and stubborn about this story. By not allowing this story, we are limiting our users' knowledge of ancient and possibly even mythological history.141.161.92.168 18:01, 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 unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caterwaul[edit]

  • This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A band entry with severe POV issues. Have toned down the 'vanity'. To be expanded properly if it is to be kept. Else Delete Prashanthns 17:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:V. A Google search of Google for Caterwaul finds no evidence of the band described in the article (The article claims they began in 2005). There does appear to have been a band active in the 1980's and 1990's by the same name that could meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. A full rewrite of the article to make it about a notable band would also be acceptable. --Allen3 talk 19:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable band vanity. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article as problems with WP:V and no evidence that they meet WP:NMG. On the other hand, Allmusic.com confirms that the band referred to by Allen3 released four albums including two on IRS Records a notable label. They had a song "The Sheep's a Wolf" make the modern rock charts in 1989. As such, I would vote to keep an article about the notable Caterwaul. Capitalistroadster 23:32, 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. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic street slang[edit]

All Google hits for "catholic street slang" turn up Wikipedia mirrors. This is unverifiable original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 12:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The page does not even say where and by whom this kind of language is used, but certainly not by people speaking any kind of street slang. Martg76 16:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Possibly a hoax. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak rename because phrases such as mea culpa have expanded into more common useage. The other examples are more questionable. The name of the article is terrible, however, if the intent of the article is to explore the use of Latin phrases that have their origin with either the Latin Mass or Catholic Chrisendom. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't reason to delete this lot and mention any expanded use of the term in Mea culpa? - Mgm|(talk) 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable original research. - Mgm|(talk) 22:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ecclesiastical Latin perhaps?  ALKIVAR™ 23:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the one who tagged the article as WP:NOR. Regarding WP:V, please see Talk:Catholic street slang for principle author's claims to such; note also that, AFAICT, the alleged source has not yet been properly provided 3 weeks after requesting it; though I have not checked Wikisource, I doubt Caufman would have bothered to post it there. As noted at Talk, I think there is some merit, in light of the continuing existence of Christianese, to retaining this article in some fashion separate from mere Latin, Ecclesiatical or otherwise. However, I do think it needs to be cleaned up if it is to be retained. For now, I abstain from the vote, as I don't hold a stong opinion in either direction. --Kgf0 16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; even if the letter by that bishop were provided, the term Catholic street slang would still be a neologism provably used by a single person so far. What makes a new term notable is its widespread use, not the fact that it has been used (only) by an important person. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN. Sahasrahla 05:37, 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 unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos comix clan and Soda-sama[edit]

Non-notable comics forum. Soda-sama being the non-notable webmaster. Delete both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both
  • forum stats: Our members have made a total of 289 posts // We have 17 registered members.
  • Website news "almost have everything fixed, everything will definitally get fixed after i get home tommorow...".
∴ here…♠ 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 09:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete because empty. --DannyWilde 15:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vanity, spam. Delete both. Soda-sama could well be a candidate for speedy deletion as empty/vanity. - Mike Rosoft 17:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Dante (Δαντε) 19:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because, well, if its not wanted, why should it be here, i jus dont see why it couldnt be up because, i doubt that "chaos comix clan" and "soda-sama" would be taken, and even if they were,and whoever wanted to take it, if they were more notable, then, why not let them have it.... --Soda-sama 19:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Titoxd(?!?) 21:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chibi Wars[edit]

This appears to be related to Star Wars somehow, but I can't really tell. "chibi wars" gets about 10k googles, but if you add in the name of any of the characters in the article to the search string, it drops down to one page, which appears to be a Bionicle forum. The page as constructed doesn't have any real info, and it certainly doesn't look or feel encyclopedic. -Colin Kimbrell 19:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably implied, but Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 19:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It may or may not warrant an article, but this particular version must be called patent nonsense. CanadianCaesar 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense Thelb4 21:07, 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 delete. Kirill Lokshin 04:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Bianco[edit]

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. The claimed "indie rock legend Kevin Newman" has already been removed as NN from the Kevin Newman disambiguation page. Tearlach 12:18, 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. Kirill Lokshin 04:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knight (publisher)[edit]

vanity article; not significant person

  • Delete per nomination. - Carax 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletevanity-Dakota 04:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being the Christopher M. Knight that is the person in question, I disagree with the delete entry nomination. How can a user "Carax" nominate me for deletion if Carax is not a valid Wikipedia User? Carax posted only 35 minutes before DakotaKahn... Doesn't that look a little coincidental?

  • Keep: The case for why this entry should not be deleted: I've been on the net for more than a decade and my thousands of articles and permission-based email newsletters impact more than 1 million unique humans on a monthly basis. While it appears I am not significant to DakotaKahn, I am significant to the 82,000 people who visited just one of my websites today. Please do not delete this entry. Thank you, Christopher M. Knight of Wisconsin. 06:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: User:Carax is a registered Wikipedia user; the fact that his name is in red just means that he hasn't created a user page (there's no requirement to do so). If he were a non-registered user, he would only be identifiable by IP address. Also, I see nothing unusual about somebody responding to an AfD nomination within 37 minutes; at any time of day, various Wikipedians are reading the Articles for Deletion page. --Metropolitan90 16:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable. Bwithh 14:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Mr. Knight, nobody is suggesting deleting *you*--only an article about you. Was it you who originally wrote it? I don't think it is proper for you to either write an article about yourself here or vote against it's deletion. There's a reason for calling such actions "vanity." Having said that, the subject of the article is somewhat notable. I think the article should stay and be expanded, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it were deleted.
  • Delete although I don't really think the article looks like vanity Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chris is a successful entrepreneur who has played a key role in the development of internet marketing and publishing. Thousands of people submit to an use the content he manages at http://www.ezinearticles.com. In a way, his service is like WikiPedia. Seems pretty significant to me. Drumdance 19:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 19:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, based on ezinearticles.com alexa rank of 798 (nice'n'high, and rising), [5]. Otherwise, would try delete based on content that reads like a myspace profile (samy, you are my hero). Nonetheless, seems infulential enough, for now. ∴ here…♠ 09:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what do we have to lose by keeping it? The more information, the better. TDS (talk • contribs) 20:29, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Mateusz[edit]

While this is a marginally entertaining story, I don't see much encyclopedic content. User:SSJeskimobob in fact appears to be quite prolific with new pages and vandalism (see also: Mateusz Pitrus and Ivica Pecic). Gsd97jks 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nomination (and keep an eye on this user) Gsd97jks 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the user has already been warned. Suggest deleting Mateusz Pitrus, Ivica Pecic also. Vandalism such as the calf muscle ... was once connected to our nose has been reverted. Dlyons493 Talk 15:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Euthanasia and Chris Korda[edit]

vanity religion? article does not establish its notability, and leader of said religion whose page seems to be band vanity.  ALKIVAR™ 13:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -  ALKIVAR™ 13:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote yet - I will have to check, but I believe that the first entry has achieved some notoriety (the second would merge into the first if the first were kept).  BD2412 talk 14:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)`
  • Don't delete I've heard of this "church" before, they're pretty notorious for trolling on forums and stuff, and they've offended quite a few people. Don't know if they're a real church or just a bunch of internet freaks, though. user:XYaAsehShalomX
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwater retirement community[edit]

This page is largely a mirror of the website, but with "we" replaced with "they". Even if not a blatant copyvio (it has been edited somewhat), it still needs to be rewritten from scratch to merit a place on Wikipedia. Magnus Holmgren 13:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Lincolnite 16:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn and probably vanity. Ifnord 18:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator --redstucco 09:51, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Amici[edit]

Delete At first was pure advertisement, now expanded to a stub, but still NN. PJM 03:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia terms of use. Dante 04:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert for nn coffee shop. TheMadBaron 10:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither the adder of the article nor I have vested interests in Coffee Amici. All elements of the article mentioned are free events. This is a significant artistic establishment; the most popular performance space in this area of the state, and certainly noteworthy. joshw 13:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (unless notability is established) but please don't use 'advert' as a reason to delete. If it is POV, clean it up. Otherwise, the question is 'does the subject itself merit an article?' In this case, I see nothing in the article which suggests that it does. --Doc (?) 15:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes it's impossible for other Wikipedians to fix up an article. In such cases we shouldn't allow adverts to stand either. Simply put in a request on the requested articles. Placeholders are bad. - Mgm|(talk) 18:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though I don't really see it meeting any speedy criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be minor local entertainment venue. (I confess I have not heard of a single one of the performers mentioned.) MCB 23:06, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CPR summary[edit]

This article is a howto, which the pedia is not. Article aleady transwikied to wikibooks:First_Aid/CPR_summary, so the article here should be deleted. -- Egil 23:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Robert Rezac, Dan Rezac, Daniel R Rezac and Daniel Rezac[edit]

Duplicate of User:Drezac's user page. I'm also unsure of the notability of write-in candidates, and the author's username raises some vanity concerns. Still, I'm hesitant to speedy this. --Alan Au 09:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (Nomination moved back to top of page. Please do not post comments or votes above the nomination; it makes it hard for people to see the original reason for nomination for deletion. Put all discussion and votes at the end of this page, or else underneath comments you are directly responding to. MCB)[reply]

  • Addition. Hey guys, sorry about the appearance of "vanity"; the apparent obscurity; and the apparency of a deliberate "Point-of-View (POV?)". The story is legit and the candidates were registered in virtually every state with the Secretary of State's offices (those states which allow "write-in candidates") as can be seen at:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/CO.phtml http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/MN.phtml http://www.beaver.state.ut.us/FINAL04.HTM http://www.elections.state.md.us/current_election/cand/cand-list.php?input=001 http://www.elections.state.md.us/current_election/cand/cand-list-print.php http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/42electg/html/2004/04usp.html http://www.carboncountyutah.com/elections/nov2004/indexnov2004.htm http://www.co.summit.co.us/Elections/2004/2004_Official_Results.htm http://elections.utah.gov/2004candidates.htm http://www1.co.weber.ut.us/Clerk_Auditor/Election/results/2004general.php http://www1.co.weber.ut.us/Clerk_Auditor/Election/results/election04.php http://www.co.fort-bend.tx.us/County_Services/elections/Candidates_Gen04.pdf http://loganco.gov/clerk/November22004GenElectionResults.htm http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/electors.pdf http://www.co.juab.ut.us/County/ETNETCUM.HTM http://newslinkindiana.com/election2004/00000004029.html http://newslinkindiana.com/election2004/00000003993.html

The above are just a few of the 8,600+ references on the 'net which prove the legitimacy of the publication. For a "non-biased" group, you guys are pretty quick to declare something a hoax or a fraud and do a poor job of research given that the candidates are registered on dozens of government websites as given above, which is all the more reason why the article should be in the wikipedia.

However, maybe this article should be represented on the wikipedia under another topic and refined as more of a research article. We would be open to suggestions. Our campaign staff is still learning the "wikipedia" forum and would like to have this article posted similar to "Patrick Fitzgerald", which is the format we followed. The original user's page (drezac) was created as a means to access the wiki and publish the "profile" of this Vp candidate. The "source watch" issue is because we are still learning your system and followed the Patrick Fitzgerald format.

John Joseph Kennedy was the candidate who ran for President, is a direct descendant of Francis Michael Kennedy (first Kennedy in U.S. politics who served as a Congressman in South Carolina House of Reps in 1882-1886), is related to the Kennedys of Boston, and is running for 2008 (see www.johnjosephkennedy.com), so we know this will become even more newsworthy as time goes by. We have a national campaign staff of hundreds of members (required in order to have electors and register in all of the states). If you want us to prove it, give me your phone number and we can have over 100 people call you in a matter of minutes since we do weekly conference calls with all of the staff.

We published it under different article names (Daniel Robert Rezac, Dan Rezac, Daniel R Rezac, and Daniel Rezac) because your search engine does not pull it up unless it is an "identical" match and we don't care to have it under the login name of "Drezac", which is why it is identical to the user homepage. We apologize if we have fumbled it up. We are still learning your system. We can clean it up and put it under one article name (preferably "Daniel Robert Rezac" and redirect the others to this one) if you give us the chance to make the correction and still allow it to be posted on the wiki. Drezac


  • Delete. Many of the links were bogus, and there is much POV about a real, if obscure, write in candidate from the 2004 US presidential race. Not a speedy, but not a keeper either. --Fire Star 09:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apparant hoax. Sourcewatch article(s) do not exist. If it's not a hoax it's at least {{TotallyDisputed}}. Alphax τεχ 09:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not a hoax, then vanity that reads like a resume or brochure: "Rezac married his college sweetheart, Lenore, on September 21, 2002 in the beautiful outdoor settings of the floral "sunken" gardens in Lincoln, Nebraska." etc Indium 10:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable or hoax. None of the members of the famous Kennedy family ran for president in 2004 as a write-in candidate with this person as their vice-presidential candidate. --Metropolitan90 16:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote withdrawn for now; apparently he did run as a write-in candidate for vice president, but his running mate was just someone named Kennedy and not a member of the famous Kennedy political family. --Metropolitan90 23:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Lincolnite 16:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 00:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh Connaughton[edit]

Delete as hoax. Google gives barely any hits on "Darragh Connaughton Athleague", plus it's unlikely that someone could be successful in so many sports. See also Enda Mc Elduff, created by the same IP. Sam Vimes 17:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Darragh Connaughton is a famous Irish soccer, rugby, darts, tennis, snooker, hurling and cricket player Oh no, he's not! Dlyons493 Talk 18:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment; before deleting, I suggest tracking Special:Whatlinkshere/Darragh Connaughton. squell 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Darragh Connaughton does seem to be a famous sportsman, possibly just because of the large number of sports he is involved in rather than his quality. The acticles and entries relating to Enda Mc Elduff seem to be vantalism however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.143.89 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. It seems that he's completely an invention, seeing as close to every hit on google is wikipedia, or a mirror. And I don't know if Athleague even has mayors... Modular 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some Irish towns do - I don't think Athleague has but it'd require going into meatspace to confirm. Dlyons493 Talk 01:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Also, can someone assess how much of the Athleague article is a hoax? Stephen Turner 07:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed everything that can't be verified on the Net. I know the River Suck sounds implausible but truth is stranger than fiction. Dlyons493 Talk 19:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is probably the name of the person who started the article, a POV autobiography of himself. DaGizza Chat (c) 08:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the deletion policy this page cannot be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.140.171 (talk • contribs)
  • Another unsigned vote from the 193.203.14[0-5].* block of addresses that wrote the article. And I think you'll probably discover that it can be deleted. :-) Stephen Turner 16:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Edit for POV The article is definately not neutral. If this guy really does exist, someone needs to edit the article. Kerowyn 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable — all net.roads lead back to Wikipedia. --Kgf0 23:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied by Starblind. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daytimesowhat[edit]

NN. A username from a website Holderca1 16:31, 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.  Denelson83  07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy: Popular Control, Popular Action, and Popular Perspective[edit]

Personal essay, original research

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for the reasons Rob gave. -Doc (?) 15:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty of Letting Go[edit]

Was listed on WP:CP, but determined that it was uploaded by the original author. Regardless, this page is a short story, not an encyclopaedia article. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 14:39, 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 05:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension 3.05 Theory[edit]

Seems to be a theory propagated on a forum, but not a widely-held scientific theory. This falls under original research, in my opinion. Not notable. —Brim 09:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It goes so far as to mention that it's scientifically inaccurate and from a forum post and finds no results on google. Original research, copyvio, nn etc. Indium 10:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research bordering on patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aww, just delete it already -_-... I was bored when I made this, and I wasn't any less bored when I posted this. And of course there's no Google search results... Google hasn't reindexed my site since I posted it. Kobra 21:17, 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.  Denelson83  07:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirth[edit]

If the band just formed this summer, I don't see how it could meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.—Gaff ταλκ 02:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delusions of grandeur. Gazpacho 02:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to WP:MUSIC notability criterion #5: Band member Jon Moss was in Culture Club, also #4: the band was mentioned in Music Week & the Daily Telegraph. There is a very good chance that Dirth will get signed by a major label. --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anetode. --Thelb4 08:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Meets WP:NMG although article currently doesn't establish that. Capitalistroadster 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sole famous member of Culture Club was Boy George. I can't imagine anyone looking up Jon Moss and then wondering whether or not he's in a new band. Likwise, even if they are signed, they will probably disappear in six months or so. Of course if I'm wrong then one of their many fans will no doubt come back and write a new article for them. So until that happens, delete. Marcus22 08:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a very good chance that Dirth will get signed by a major label. - okay, but WP:NOT a crystal ball, so weak delete until they actually get signed. Radiant_>|< 12:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anetode. --Pamri • Talk 13:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established. Needs expansion. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anetode. Def. notable. - Sensor 15:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anetode. Passes WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|(talk) 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per radiant Tedernst 21:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. They have a nobody member of Culture Club, but they've got the magazine coverage. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a bit to the article and turned it into a British rock stub. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 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 deleted. – Alphax τεχ 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctive Fabric[edit]

Apparent advertising page for small online fabric store. CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article was speedy deleted after nomination, suggest this be closed.


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DistinctiveFabric.com, Inc.[edit]

Non-notable online fabric store. 26 hits on Google. Kwekubo 02:32, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Web, Ltd.[edit]

Delete. For the same reason as Dr.Web Antivirus and Dr.Web®; and also because it's a duplicate(!) Fourohfour 17:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dr.Web Antivirus, Dr.Web®, and Doctor Web, Ltd. are all associated and posted by the same person. Fourohfour 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN, ad. Devotchka 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising and dupe article. squell 18:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, it's not free encyclopedia as I thought, it's bought up one. :( well, it's your choise. be bought and having no knowledge --eg 18:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising as other recent posts on the same company's products. ERcheck 20:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Kirill Lokshin 05:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drumstick (Diddy Kong Racing)[edit]

NN character from single game. Its a racing game. Characters are barely fleshed out enough to warrant a few lines, let alone individual pages. DooMDrat 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Diddy Kong Racing per above.--DooMDrat 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to ask for permission to do a merge. Just go ahead, or discuss on a talk page first. -Splashtalk 02:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, too much material to merge. Kappa 02:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one-off minor character, already mentioned at Diddy Kong Racing --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the users shouldn't be able to read about this aspect of the game? Kappa 03:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This "aspect" of the game is already documented @ Diddy_Kong_Racing#Characters --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So "Drumstick is a rooster" is supposed to satisfy people? Kappa 04:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...Yes. Assuming that you are talking about people and not obsessive videogame fanatics who have never heard of GameFAQs.com (although even they might find the detailed description of Drumstick's appearance that is next to a self-evident portrait to be a bit superfluous). --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK so we deduce that game fans are not people, and presumably that wikipedia users without internet access aren't human either. Kappa 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Deduce what you want. My point is simple: the above article is un-encylopedic and describes a non-notable character in exorbitant detail. --anetode¹ ² ³ 05:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...and that people who want more than "drumstick is a rooster" are not worthy of consideration. Kappa 05:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A playable character in a notable game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite an amount of info, notable. --Thelb4 08:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fictional characters from video games are notable enough. Agree with that this is a bit too big to merge, although I am OK with that too. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above arguments. Wikpedia can afford this article. Punkmorten 14:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, playable characters in a videogame are notable enough for their own article, but it could stand a cleanup to a little more encycopedic tone. - Mgm|(talk) 15:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; merging not necessary. He already gets an appropriate 1-line mention and appears in a group picture in the main DKR article. What more do we need? Minutiae such as his paper-thin backstory are inappropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia such as this one. I've taken the liberty of adding an external link to GameFAQs on the main article so people looking for more detail than is appropriate for Wikipedia can do specialized research elsewhere. flowersofnight 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean Up and Merge with Diddy Kong Racing. Perhaps go into a little more detail on the DKR mainpage with the details of this and the other two character pages in question (T.T. and Bumper).jfg284

Keepvery helpful

  • Delete (NOT redirect). Gamecruft. --Calton | Talk 03:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk dialing[edit]

Basically, a dictionary entry, also possibly a neologism. This article seems to have little potential to become a good encyclopedia article, and therefore I suggest deletion. DannyWilde 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; barely a dictdef. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Mindmatrix 16:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. PJM 17:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or transwiki to wictionary. I would hazard to say that Drunk dialing is a common enough term. I've heard it many times before, when I was in college. The New York Post did an article about it. [6] Also, there is a service the Virgin Moble provides to keep people from drunk dialing. [7], and the term was used in a "respectable" newspaper, the Washington Post. [8], in an article about call phones. Most importantly, I heard my MOTHER use the term. ;) Roodog2k (Hello there!) 18:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like there's reasonable potential for expansion, and I've certainly heard the usage on multiple occasions before. -Colin Kimbrell 19:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I probably suffer from a lack of imagination, but how do you propose expanding it? For example, "List of notable drunk dialers", or "Famous drunk dialing scenes from the movies", etc.? --DannyWilde 02:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Famous instances from popular culture could work, and so could a comparison with prank calling or a discussion of the changes in brain mechanics resulting from alcohol use that enable the behavior, or a comparison of drunk dialing behaviors in different cultures, or references to the increase in the behavior with the increased popularity of cellphones. In a few more years, maybe a description of a behavioral psychology study. I'm sure there are other things in a similar vein. -Colin Kimbrell 02:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thought of a few more: References to sexual harassment, subsections on the drunken transmittal of text messages or pictures, and a discussion of phone conversations in general and how they relate to the concept of thin slicing, as discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's newest book Blink. There's really quite a lot of material here, if you think about it. -Colin Kimbrell 03:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be possibilities for original research, rather than notable existing topics. Unless you have some evidence the term is currently notable, I still suggest deletion. --DannyWilde 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree with roodog2 and vote Keep or transwiki to wiktionary. This is a WIDLEY used term in high school or college and in my opinion certainly deserves its own entry, though admittedly there may be little more to it than a dicdef.jfg284
  • Trans-Wiktionary this monstrosity  ALKIVAR™ 23:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reason? -Colin Kimbrell 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the virgin mobiles thing makes it encyclopedic. Kappa 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There should be inclusion of who uses the term "drunk dialing." SNL tonight had a sketch where Harriet Miers was drunk dialing. And though I've never actually read the books, it sounds like it might be something that Bridget Jones might do (is that true, anyone?). What about music? The term might be in a few pop songs. And there's always this. (After more research) According to this, the concept made the New York Times. Jacqui ★ 07:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the current expansion is the best that can be done with it, I still suggest deletion. --DannyWilde 07:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki - this is mentioned in Sideways when the protag calls his X. (Did you drunk dial)... (I hate that movie) Frequently used term in pop culture. Deserved of dictionary entry, if not more. (Though I don't see the encyclopedic value?) ∴ here…♠ 09:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and expand or transwiki if the virgin mobile is enough to expand then it should stay, otherwise transwiki it (Previous unsigned edit by User:Chemturion -Colin Kimbrell 19:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • transwiki notable as a dicdef, but not encyclopedic (at least for now). Could be recreated in future if this becomes more noted in popular culture. Youngamerican 15:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Web®[edit]

commercial advertising ERcheck 16:21, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Web Antivirus[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable anti-virus software. - Squibix 16:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yep, definite advertising going on there. If the software is used much, maybe a short article could be written for it. Modular 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and: delete per nomination. - Squibix 17:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dr.Web Antivirus, Dr.Web®, and Doctor Web, Ltd. are all associated and posted by the same person. Fourohfour 17:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I vote delete Fourohfour 17:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, ad. Devotchka 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, keep on you knowing nothing, any way. I wash my hands.. i'm hurt. you want to know nothing. Gee Wheez! --eg 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google does give quite a number of hits, but if this product really needs such an extensive article someone will no doubt create it in a less biassed form. squell 18:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • well. you must remove referenses to Dr.Web from your stupid articles where I've found its (Note: Preceding unsigned edit by User:Egladkih) -Colin Kimbrell 19:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in accordance with Wikipedia policy on advertising. ERcheck 20:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable antivirus software.  Grue  20:07, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ectroverse[edit]

Two Googles. We've had a similar case recently with Tick (FE) Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article is devoid of information. Denni☯ 00:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Weyburn[edit]

Not a notable person yet, but may be one day. I have been unable to find any references or justification for notability except perhaps acting as "Unpaid Spectator" in the Surviving Gilligan's Island: The Incredibly True Story of the Longest Three Hour Tour in History [9] TV show. Please see WP:BIO for guidelines on inclusion of biographies. BenjaminTsai 08:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:BIO. Indeed, the article could almost be an A7 speedy delete although claims of being a self made millionaire is an assertion of notability. The article would be better if it spent more time trying to establish notability and less talking about her dog. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per nomination. I've heard of her. Then again, I'm from the area and she's local talk! This page will come in handy for us locals when I tell everyone it's here! Southpaws03 09:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Per nomination"? You think she should be kept because she's "not a notable person"? :P — Haeleth Talk
  • Delete non-notable and vanity bio. I hope Southpaws' comment doesnt mean an invasion of local meat puppets. I see southpaws contribution history is totally new too. Bwithh 14:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no longer any reference to the dog Seriously, why not create an account and move this to your user page until the WP:BIO guidelines are met? Dlyons493 Talk 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio. — Haeleth Talk 14:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO or as non-verifiable. A 25-year-old self-made millionaire might be notable, but an article that discusses her hobbies but not her business is not encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 16:13, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Mc Elduff[edit]

Delete as hoax. Google gives no hits on this name, nor many of its permutations. [10] Created by a similar IP as Darragh Connaughton, see related AfD Sam Vimes 17:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vaughan[edit]

Actually two bios in the same article. The first is a non notable researcher. The Univeristy of Sussex lists Vaughan as a Graduate assistant and research student. The second is the owner of this website, neither he nor the website seem notable either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, although delete the second truly non-notable Eric Vaughan (college senior). It appears that a lot of the people in this field have Wikipedia articles, including several people who appear to have far less notability than this guy. Not that that entitles this guy to necessarily have a page, but... Gsd97jks 20:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; as a student researcher, does not even rise to the level of notability of the "professor test". (I edited the article to excise the irrelevant second person, to make things less confusing.) MCB 00:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Europeanisation[edit]

This was originally listed at Deletion Review. Instead of being undeleted (the original was AfD'd here) a new article was written, which is fine. Howver, the original article faced (serious) charges of being original research, and the new incarnation cites no sources whatever — it sounds to me a little like a construction of a term based on some possible examples. Whether it passes WP:NOR and WP:V should probably be discussed here again. -Splashtalk 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not the same language as was used in the original POV rant. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't wait for me to say that it wasn't. -Splashtalk 02:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a commonly used term in the political and social sciences. I've added a link that covers most of what is said in the article. For any article like this, it is easy to get almost arbitrarily many sources via Google Scholar search (5670 hits for the Z spelling, 4400 for the S). Christopher Parham (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as you can provide cites that verify the individual facts in the article rather than simply the existence of the term itself, that's fine. It's too late here for me to sit and read the link you have already provided to see if it already covers each claim currently present. -Splashtalk 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the possible exception of the last paragraph, all claims appear factual and accounted for. --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add sources. Notable concept and current article seems reasonable. Capitalistroadster 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have rewritten one or two POV phrases and the last paragraph. Reads OK now. Needs expanding really. Marcus22 09:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This is valid political and social terminoligy, every bit as much as globalisation. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A well recognised term. As per cactus man too. Nil Einne 14:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep phrase is in (fairly) common use - and the concept is of much debate. --Doc (?) 15:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's also a common term in law. Martg76 16:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an increasingly important topic which needs expansion rather than deletion. Boldymumbles 01:40, 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 delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exeter College Novice B Boat[edit]

Not notable 163.1.239.242 16:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Even the Oxford University crews do not get pages of their own so giving them to colleges, particularly college novice second crews, is just plain ludicrous. I assume this is just a couple of crew members having a laugh. - 163.1.239.242 16:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though for the record, Exeter College is a part of Oxford University.jfg284

I don't see what the problem is with having a page on a Novice B boat: much infomation is useless to most people but it isn't getting in the way of anything

  • Please imagine what wikipedia would look like if it allowed pages on anything just because "they don't get in the way". Kappa 03:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The page could in years to come be a comprehensive list of novice crews for the college. If others added the crews of other colleges, this would be properly encyclopaedic. Do not forget that novice crews only exist for a term and often memebrs from the B Boat or even C Boat end up in the 1st VIII, and even in the University Blues team. In five years, some of these crew members could be rowing in the Varsity Boat Race and the history of their rowing roots could be traced back to here. EachyJ 17:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for utter triviality.Staffelde 01:13, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Hill (NCSSM), formerly at First Hill[edit]

Article is poorly titled, may refer to any number of "First Hill" locations. --Alan Au 00:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then rename it to a better one, and Keep! Trollderella 00:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteA hall at a university-vanityDakota

  • Merge with North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Eh, it is one of the oldest dorms on campus. CanadianCaesar 01:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being the oldest dorm on campus isn't really notable unless there's a lot more to it than they've got here. It was built less than one hundred years ago, which is interesting but not really encyclopedic. It warrants a mention on the NCSSM page; that's it. Devotchka 01:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would probably be a good idea, but I'm interested in why you think it is 'interesting but not encyclopedic'. Trollderella 01:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There are a tons of century-old buildings around the United States and they don't all deserve their own encyclopedia entry. In a lot of older, more-established countries, a century-old building barely registers on the radar because there are so many. We can't put every single old building in the world on the site (uh, at least they can't get all their own entries). For the record, I'm not hugely opposed to keeping this entry, I just don't think it's necessary unless they can prove that there's more to it than "the oldest building on campus, once a hospital and now a dorm". That's not much for notability. Devotchka 01:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in why you think we can't. Trollderella 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable hall of residence. (As to old buildings: there are several million buildings at least 100 years old in the UK. So IMHO age alone cannot be a sufficient criteria for listing a building). Marcus22 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The First Hill page has been up for mere minutes and it already has several dedicated members of the hall (myself included) adding everything we know and love about 1HL's present and past. The article will be visited by many more members of the hall and of the school soon and more pertinent info delving into NCSSM's history will surface. I think this page will ultimately be very interesting and encyclopedic when historical information is brought in. The page will be about the hall and its people, not only the old building we live in. Snowmanmelting 01:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The people who live in the dorm are not notable. Just because something exists doesn't mean that it warrants entry into Wikipedia. If, however, if you have more information on the building itself, (perhaps famous alumni), go ahead and add it. Devotchka 01:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious then, why pages like Sapulpa, Oklahoma and Devils Lake, North Dakota are allowed to sit around. Though the statistics on those pages (and those on the hundreds practically identical to them) are absolutely mesmerizing, I don't think they would "warrant entry into Wikipedia" as they are solely about existence. Pages about small towns are trivial; a 1HL page would discuss the people and events that tie the hall together making the page infinitely more interesting than some of the tidbits that user:Rambot (the bot that creates many of those geography pages) adds. Snowmanmelting 02:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page would be infinitely beneficial to anyone wishing to know information about their future home at NCSSM. In order to establish confortability in their new envronment, any info at all is helpful in 'greasing the skids' into dormitory life. Not only this, but any outsiders with an interest in the school would find this page informative, even in its current infant state.Master Kenichi 01:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an university accommodation helpdesk. non-notable building. Bwithh 02:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 34 residents & the astounding Mike Fliss do little to reinforce any notion of notability --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are notable dormitories, and this isn't one of them. Pilatus 03:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, No real reason to keep it. I just live there. tomtom1612 12:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just part of a single dormitory at a boarding school and is too narrow a subject to be notable. Information about the dorms belongs on the school web site, not in Wikipedia. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jester Dormitory (at the University of Texas), which was deleted despite the fact that its subject is the largest dormitory in the world. If the largest dormitory in the world isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article, then this one isn't either. --Metropolitan90 04:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. nn. Thelb4 07:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Make better articles. Alphax τεχ 08:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics. Individual residence halls are too numerous and mundane to deserve their own articles, but it is conceivable that a person interested in the college will be interested in the various facilities. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Ditto Sjakkalle. —Wayward Talk 09:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 12:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable only to those who have lived here. Denni☯ 00:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge any useful content, but do not take this as a keep vote in any case, due to the overspecific topic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Postpone Merge to determine interesting, unique content.

As the "SLI" on first hill (and a wikipedia lover), I'll weigh in some. First, take a look at the deletion guidelines, especially, "What wikipedia is not."

  1. 1 What Wikipedia is not
   * 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
   * 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary
   * 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
   * 1.4 Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine
   * 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files
   * 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider
   * 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
   * 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
   * 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors
  1. 2 What the Wikipedia community is not
   * 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground
   * 2.2 Wikipedia is not an anarchy
   * 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy
   * 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Nothing in there except Potentially "indicrimitate collection of information" fits the bill as reason for deletion. Here's that list. 

  1. Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. 
  2. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms or persons.
  3. Travel guides. 
  4. Memorials. 
  5. News reports. 
  6. Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. 
  7. Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business. 
  8. Instruction manuals

In a positive sense, here's reasons to include it. As a random collection of dorm-related information... no, I don't think think that's wikipedia worthy. That would be more a blog or other vanity page.

However, 1st Hill definitely has an unique character that has not yet come across in articles. From our soap-making success/fiasco (1st Hill Fight Club Soap at party) to the assasins spoon game, there's a lot of quirky stuff happening. Is everything quirky worthy of a webpage...maybe. Is everything quirky worthy of a wikipedia entry? Probably not.

But my case would be, given enough interest in writing articles related to first hill, its inclusion would benefit those folks interested in applying to the school of science and math who are interested in its personality and fit as a school. School web pages are not an option... and merging into the greater NCSSM wikipedia is too much of a scope shift - 1st hill has its own flavor, most definitely, and it would be like deleting an entry on chocolate (complete with bean information and histories of creation) to include that material under the general ice cream category. information which may be useful to more people than just chocolate growers would be lost in the subsuming.

There's my weighing in. merge if it becomes poorly added to.Aspiringbodhisattva 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article after a significant reference of notability was found and the nominator changed his/her mind regarding potential deletion of this article.  Denelson83  07:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fisker[edit]

New automobile company that hasn't launched any products yet. I found a press release announcing the company's formation, but nothing else. Not notable yet. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 00:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howcheng has changed his mind after the article was rewritten and more precisely after a NYT article reference was added. For more, see below. --Edcolins 08:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal ball etc. Ashibaka (tock) 06:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Avery W. Krouse 07:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Thelb4 07:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Fisker Coachbuild. "Fisker Coachbuild" Returns 32,600 google hits [11]. Not bad. The Fisker Latigo CS was shown at the 2005 Frankfurt Motor Show. [12]. --Edcolins 18:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expanded the article. --Edcolins 19:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty to move it for the sake of clarity. --Edcolins 19:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company is as yet unknown. Dante (Δαντε) 19:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. PJM 00:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball. Also non-notable until they produce significantly more than three hundred vehicles total. Saberwyn 02:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. I'm getting sick of the whole notability-as-a-deletion-criteria debate. I believe that there are certain articles that do not belong in an encyclopedia, and this is one of them. Until I can point to a set of criteria that states if my belief is correct or not. I'm abstaining from this debate. Saberwyn 08:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 300 vehicles is a landmark for any exotic car company. Many don't produce 30, let alone 300, but do manage to create some unique vehicles. I agree it's non-notable for now, but only until they present the car in rolling conditions - that is, one example should be enough. - Pc13 09:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the other hand, I think the subject matter in the article is verifiable, neither constitute original research nor constitute vanity. There is an ongoing debate as to whether lack of notability is a criterion for deletion. Up to now however, "there is currently no official policy on notability" [13]. I would suggest to carefully consider the existing guidelines before making rush conclusions. IMHO. --Edcolins 08:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was still going to vote delete on this until I saw your changes from today. An NYT article reference changes the whole picture. Keep. --howcheng [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 17:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Framework for Integrated Tests[edit]

Delete. Nothing more than product promotion/advertisement. DanMS 20:23, 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 KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie LaRocka[edit]

A dead musician - that's too little content even for a stub. Robert Weemeyer 11:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Robert Weemeyer 11:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)AfD nominator cannot vote Prashanthns 17:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC AfD nominator CAN vote. Sorry for the strike-off. Prashanthns 18:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. According to Allmusic.com, he was the drummer for Scandal see [14]. According to this page, he played with Bon Jovi and Bryan Adams at various stages see [15]. Mind you, the article is eligible for WP:CSD under A1 for little or no content and A7 for no assertion of notabilitybut Im sure it could be expanded. Capitalistroadster 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster if the article is expanded by the end of the AFD period. If not, delete for lack of content and put in an article request at WP:RA or an appropriate project. - Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the ever living hell out of this.  ALKIVAR™ 23:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article so as to establish his notability under WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent job. Did you find out if he was one of the Bands Reunited members from the Scandal show?  ALKIVAR™ 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as expanded. 23skidoo 06:35, 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 merge. Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Carter (basketball)[edit]

Redundant with Fred Carter. Aecis 09:19, 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 keep. Kirill Lokshin 05:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Froylan Ledezma[edit]

Since I am not a big football (soccer) fan, this could be an inappropriate nomination but here's my reasoning: 1) article is 1 line bio 2) google for "Froylan Ledezma" -856 hits "Froylán Ledezma" -2,450 hits vs "Alkivar" (me!) turns up 11,800. So if he's actually notable de-list this... WITHDRAWN  ALKIVAR™ 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete keep atm.  ALKIVAR™ 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, 9,470 of those hits of yours are on Wikipedia... (Not a vote, I haven't looked at the article, etc etc.) —Cryptic (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok so a "Alkivar -Site:en.wikipedia.org" still gets me as many as Froylan... :)  ALKIVAR™ 15:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason I get more hits for "Froylan Ledezma", 1,170. Froilan/Froilán are other alternative spellings. Punkmorten 15:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah I get different hit counts for other spelling variations... whats the CORRECT spelling then?  ALKIVAR™ 15:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Froilán or Froylán. I don't know. Punkmorten 15:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The google hits indicate that he is a Costa Rican international, therefore, notable at least in Costa Rica. At least it's a one-line bio no more. Punkmorten 14:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now a good little stub and well done to Punkmorten for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep international football players are notable. Sam Vimes 09:52, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaanaargaan[edit]

Tagged as copyvio, but I don't see it and this one sentence stub is all over the web. A cursory look around (and I was only cursory) suggests this is just an ad for a MP3 portal -Splashtalk 22:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the subject appears to be non-notable (unless it's mis-spelled), Googling for "Gaan Aar Gaan" excluding mirrors yields only three hits, including the site itself [16]. The other two are forum posts, and at least one of these is apparently unrelated. Similarly blank searching for it as one word. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as baffling and an ad. Devotchka 22:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as for countries where internet is not yet that popular even significant things might get way more hits than usual.213.190.42.88 14:52, 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 moot. Has been merged into Saturday Night Live characters appearing on Weekend Update. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Hitler[edit]

I fail to see the relevance of this. I vote to delete. PersonDude 01:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Completed faulty nomination. Vote Keep as "failing to see relevance" is not a valid ground for deletion Xoloz 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, helpfully linked for me on the page in question! Ashibaka (tock) 06:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't this on AfD before? Oh wait no, that was Hitler (South Park) (or something like that). Anyway, I don't see why this needs to go. I'd say keep it in its current place as a notable part of pop culture. I suppose I'd be okay with merging it into Hitler in popular culture, too. I don't really see a place for it on Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, because that is a list, and a large one at that. Jacqui ★ 06:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, SNL characters should not have articles unless there is something exceptional about them. If kept, merge into Hitler in popular culture. -- Kjkolb 06:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the controversiality of a subject shouldn't influence its likelihood for deletion. -- Vote by 69.40.179.158
  • Keep. Is this the end of Gay Hitler? --DavidConrad 11:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per kjkolb. Radiant_>|< 12:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Pamri • Talk 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sprechen Sie keep? — Haeleth Talk 14:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but I question if there is really a need to have a page for every single recurring SNL character. Perhaps at least use a 'Character name (SNL)' format for links. However as long as things remain as they are now should be kept Nil Einne 14:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working at the SNL link above though I did not create it, and I see the merit in this line of thinking. Audience McGee is a red link at that page. You can see how important he is here! I'm thinking that, while we have a category for sketches and none for characters, it's the charatcers who would be better organized in category form, while I think an annotated list is still necessary for sketches. Perhaps we should take this conversation off the AfD page and to User:Leadpipevigilante, who "owns" the SNL list we've been referencing. If you're interested, please hit up my talk page as well. Jacqui ★ 15:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either into the SNL article - this isn't a stand alone charecter like the Coneheads or "Pat" (both of which had movies built around them) or even Mr. Bill, which developed its own cult following. Stu 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a merge does happen, I would suggest putting the information in Weekend Update instead, as that's where Gay Hitler shows up. Jacqui ★ 15:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. I change my vote to merge. 68.161.13.188 22:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way. I'm 68.161.13.188. PersonDude 23:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Don't destroy history! Jazz1979 03:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hitler in popular culture or Weekend Update (sketch) or something. Andrew Levine 07:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Weekend Update (sketch). I'm the one who supposedly "owns" the SNL lists, but I just extensively expanded it from its original form. One idea I'd like to keep in place is having some information on each character somewhere - a lot are still red links, as it's quite an undertaking. I don't mind if they're merged together into categories (such as those that appeared on Update, or "Little Known Recurring characters" or something. Any suggestions for categories? The only thing is, we might have some that fit into more than one category, or some that don't fit anywhere. Leadpipevigilante 22:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen's Shaving Club[edit]

As far as I can tell, the club is a group of friends with a name. Joyous (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The orgainisation did indeed begin simply as a group of friends with a name, however, in the last year, the group has moved into the field of politics and is now rallying support and funds to run for the 2008 local elections in the Bromsgrove District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.212.223 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought i'd add my support for the retention of this article. Here at Oxford, we recognise that gentlemen's clubs are an eccentric yet delightful feature of the nation's social history, but not one that should be hermetically sealed in a museum display case. Nor indeed should it forever be associated with the upper classes. Since the inclusion of this article would represent both a recognition of a fine and very much living tradition, and also a strong endorsement of honourable friendship even amongst those without good breeding, such a move surely deserves approbation. I can submit that many of my fellow scholars feel much the same way. Coll. Magd. Oxon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.43.240 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - and moreover, the Gentlemen's Shaving Club is not only notable for being a feature of the nation's social history, but for in itself being a profound socio-political experiment. In very few such groups in the UK are social classes and opinions so mixed. Nor, in fact, do they permeate so widely outside their original area of influence. As a social, cultural and political entity of renown, I promote retention. Coll. Sanc. Ioh. Bapt. Oxon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.62.115 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable vanity - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN vanity .Devotchka 22:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This AFD page was vandalized by 86.136.212.223 who changed the previous two votes (which I reverted). AFD vandalization makes me very suspicious of a page’s worthiness. ♠DanMS 02:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I reverted vandal 86.136.212.223. Vanity in the raw.-Dakota 03:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in then, but this day will remain forever in history as the day when Wikipedia deleted an entry about a future Prime Minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.212.223 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which will be recreated for all the right reasons when he becomes the Prime Minister. Saberwyn
Well done for saying "when" and not "if" - chuckle chuckle. I'm oooooonly playing
  • My goodness, you guys have quite a high opinion of yourselves. Hilarious. Thanks for the heads up, by the way, DanMS. Devotchka 02:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity pages are teh suck. Jachin 05:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you appear to have a limited sense of humour. However I still love you, in the same way I love all of humanity.

  • I can't speak for the tohers, but I have a highly developed sense of humour. Take your article to Uncyclopaedia where it will be welcome. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, Uncyclopedia only wants things that are actually funny. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I think it's pretty funny. I had no idea people like this still existed outside of Woodhouse books! Devotchka 15:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main difference is, Woodhouse was satirising people who really acted that way. This lot are just playing silly buggers and consciously trying to be amusing, with mixed success. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, vanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost tempted to write an article about the comedy club at my old university - they called themselves the Pig Fondlers' Guild. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly an inside joke. If any of these people ever make anything of themselves, we can consider it for re-inclusion.Geoff NoNick 16:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete/speedy. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Still[edit]

Total nonsense bio. Google gives an address and phone number of "George J Still, (650) 566-****, *** Camino Al Lago, Atherton, CA 94027" but confirms nothing else. Suggest all readers phone him and make voice complaint. -- RHaworth 01:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely worthless. Devotchka 01:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure nonsense. ManoaChild 01:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is what happens when you get greedy. He claims he won every type of nobel prize. You need to make up something plausible and hard to disprove. -- Kjkolb 01:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above KnowledgeOfSelf 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete hoax, CSD:G3/Silly Vandalism --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Anetode, and otherwise agree with Kjkolb. --Metropolitan90 03:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eadem. --Avery W. Krouse 07:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Anetode Thelb4 07:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. Hoax, but hoaxes are not speediable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN or delete unless someone can verify all the nobel prizes, the beatification (while still alive!), the pulitzers, bestsellers, speaking tours, etc. --Aquillion 19:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert T | @ | C 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Key[edit]

This article is highly misleading. It purports to describe the use of gold bars and artifacts as "keys" to Swiss bank accounts. Nothing of the sort is true. The article also seems to deliberately confuse works of fiction (particularly The Da Vinci Code) with reality. One of the authors has also created a misleading image asserting that an ordinary serial-numbered gold bar is a "gold key", and also inserted similar misleading information in our article Swiss banking. --FOo 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. If the concept is purely fictional, that's okay as long as the article makes that clear... example: President of Earth. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove the inaccurate material so people can learn that it's not real. Gazpacho 04:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Fictional items definitely belong in encyclopedias, e.g. Golden fleece, robin hood, alice in wonderland, mickey mouse etc. etc. I see the firstl line statrts off "In fiction, a gold key is...." Therefore, I am not sure what cleaning up would be required. It would be a shame to remove the nice photos, but reference could be made to the fact that they are representations of what a gold key may be. Watercolour 06:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup with more emphasis on the fictional nature. Gringotts Wizarding Bank in Diagon Alley in the Harry Potter series has a similar arrangement. Capitalistroadster 08:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first line of the article makes it obvious that a gold key is only in fiction.
  • Keep and Cleanup Sure, the first line makes it clear that it's fiction, but other parts of the article (particularly captions) seem to forget that fact. I agree with Lenahan: stress the fiction aspect a little more and this article's in business.Keep The cleanup part seems to have been done. Reads now like a legitimate encyclopeia article on a fictional object. Good work MCB.jfg284
  • Redirect to Gold Key Comics. The current article is useless and describes something that does not, in fact, exist. flowersofnight 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. This isn't just an object in Da Vinci Code; it's a somewhat common concept in conspiracy theories and conspiracy writing. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. 23skidoo 06:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia also has entries for Wonka Bars (fictional chocolate bars), Misty Mountains and Krypton, (fictional places), Pussy Galore and The Mad Hatter (fictional people), R2-D2 and C-3PO (fictional robots), Gnommish (the "fairy language" used in the Artemis Fowl books), Bandersnatch (a fictional creature), and Batmobile (a fictional car). Revised Edition 18:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This is almost so misleading and confusing that it might be better to delete it than try to fix it, but I'm going to go whack at it with an axe, and we'll see. I would not be terribly disappointed it it were deleted, though. MCB 23:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did some major surgery to address the fact/fiction issues, removed some excessive images and misleading captions, got rid of the excessive DaVincicruft & spoilage, added Harry Potter reference per Capitalistroadster, and other minor stuff. MCB 23:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as we have other fictional entries. Carioca 21:45, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Serpent of Sumeria[edit]

I added an {{unreferenced}} tag to this oneliner in July and it has neither been supplied with references nor been improved in any other way. Unless the existence of this particular mythical serpent (apparently a relative of the Midgard Serpent) can be verified somewhere, I suggest deletion of the article. Uppland 16:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Googling "Serpent of Sumeria" only returns copies of/references to this Wikipedia article. There appears to a vague Serpent and Sumeria connection somewhere, but nothing specific enough to provide a case for this article. Fourohfour 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable Prashanthns 18:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Googling "Great Serpent"+Sumer gives close to 500 hits, many of which seem relevant. Needs massive work though. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, work which I have already begun (didn't see this before, interesting). --Kgf0 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Kirill Lokshin 05:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gruniad[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted I mis-spelled Grauniad as "Gruniad". How ironic! 147.188.192.41 13:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Grauniad. Incidentally do you really meann satyrical? Dlyons493 Talk 13:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Guardian, like Grauniad. (Google implies that this is a common misspelling of the common misspelling. ^_^) — Haeleth Talk 14:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grauniad is currently just a redirect to The Guardian. It's like redirecting injun to native american. It's not quite the same word even though it refers to the same thing. The connotations are qute different. I think a (short) separate article would be better.83.67.16.56 12:34, 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 del: author's request. mikka (t) 00:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High School Debating Forums[edit]

  • del. Nonnotable yet. Zero google hits is way too few for an internet thing. Sorry for hittin hard on a newcomer. Come back next year. mikka (t) 03:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep 90-member forums aren't generally notable, but I hate to see that much effort go to waste. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 03:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As author of this article, I will go ahead and support it's deletion if it is not notable enough yet. It's fine by me. Can you please clairfy the 'come back next year' comment, mikka? (drop me a line on my talk page, rather then here) (Purplefeltangel, it's fine. The effort was kind of learning how to use Wikipedia, and I have a number of other articles I'm working on anyways.) TDS (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Mikka probably meant it might have gained enough in popularity to be worth an article in that time. By the way, I commend you on taking this deletion nomination so well. There's too many people who explode when their work is nominated for deletion. If you want to test your skills, you could also use the Wikipedia:Sandbox or a user subpage like User:TDS/Sandbox. Happy editing! - Mgm|(talk) 18:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might even say speedy delete as the author supports the deletion.jfg284
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Swinging. - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hot wife[edit]

This appears to be little more than a dicdef. I recommend delete unless notability can be established. --Alan Au 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing recommendation to speedy redirect. --Alan Au 01:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Did anyone happen to catch the contributor's name? Oy vey. - Lucky 6.9 01:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am trying to write articles on the sexual swinging lifestyle, which millions of people in the world subscribe to. If you believe this has no relevancy in Wikipedia then delete and I will stop contributing. --Swinger1
    • Millions of people around the world subscribe to it; I don't think it's particularly prevalent in the U.S. Devotchka 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you ever look at the internet outside of wikipedia?!—Gaff ταλκ 03:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unclear. Sorry, I meant that it isn't more prevalent in the US than anywhere else. Devotchka 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no idea whether it's a specialized "swinging" term but it certainly doesn't deserve its own entry. Throw it on the swinging page if anything. Devotchka 01:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to let people who are experts in particular areas contribute articles. To most people swinging might be just dancing but you can't ignore millions of people who are looking for specific sexual terms like "hot wife" and "slut wife". If anything, a person that knows the subject should be the judge and not a person who specializes in other areas or whose knowledge of the matter is slim --Swinger1
      • You're more than welcome to write more on the "hot wife" article if there's more to it than a simple definition. Definitions don't get their own entries here; they go to the Wiktionary. You could consider putting it in as a section on the swinging page, specialized "swinging" terms and whatnot. Devotchka 01:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • In that case, please accept my sincerest apology for assuming that you were trolling. That was the basis of my comment. Changing vote to abstain. - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem if you would like to roll this content into a larger article about Swinging or Swingers. However, I'm not sure that this particular term is worthy of a separate article. --Alan Au 01:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- one person's dicdef 66.25.38.14 01:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect would be good. Devotchka 01:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll add my last comments on the matter. Ask yourself this question. If you were in charge of a public library, would you ban books that you think might not interest people? probably not. Swinging is a sizable subculture, to throw it all in one single page would be unfair to the whole concept of Wikipedia in the first place. This should be the perfect place to share specialized information not selective information --Swinger1
      • I'd very quickly ban a book if the only thing in it was a paragraph-long definition for one term. Nobody is trying to ban your subculture. We're all aware that it's huge. These rules on definitions and everything apply to every subject and not just particularly controversial ones. Devotchka 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How and why would you ban a book that has not been even written? the article is up for deletion because some people think the term is not worthy of an article or public interest. The problem, with that is that the ones judging don't know enough about the matter in the first place. It would be like me giving opinions on articles about rocket science or gardening. People are proposing to lump everything in swinging which in itself is a whole article. How are people going to find out what is what with policies like these? Wikipedia should be place to expand specialized knowledge.

--Swinger1

          • If the contents are merged with another article, and that part of the other article later becomes too big, then the page can be recreated. At the momemt there is nothing like enough material to merit an article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- Pilatus presents a good argument. -- 69.232.187.204 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have to apologize to users and contributors for the typical editorial policy here, which is to redirect terms like hotwife to pages which don't even mention them, like swinging. Kappa 03:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hot wife with Cuckold (or at least Swinging) --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or redirect to my user page ;-D).  BD2412 talk 03:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Hot wife and Hotwife both and have one be a redirect.—Gaff ταλκ 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Swinging and redirect per Anetode and Pilatus. --Metropolitan90 03:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Swinging. Ditto for above vote. Dante (Δαντε) 04:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If it will help to form consensus, I would also support a merge to swinging. Jacqui ★ 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 12:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as per Metro Nil Einne 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Metro. This isn't an issue of censorship, etc., but rather having a coherent article. - Sensor 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Initialize[edit]

Dicdef... in what appears to be Farsi. — Haeleth Talk 21:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've listed this for a translator's comment - could well be a speedy --Doc (?) 21:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at the appropriate time as an untranslated article regardless of content. --Fire Star 17:06, 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 merge with Ithaca, New York. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ithaca, City of Evil[edit]

Non notable political slur. Google pulls 83 hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's worth merging with the main article.

Merge and redirect to Ithaca, New York.*Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 04:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and Merge to Ithaca, New York, as I've seen this in a few books on New York history.--Sean Black | Talk 04:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete attack page - CSD A6 --anetode¹² ³ 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Redirect --anetode¹ ² ³ 11:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources lead me to believe that this is original resource contrary to WP:NOR. No merge as it would not improve the Ithaca article to have these unsourced claims added and no redirect because I doubt that many people would search for Ithaca, City of Evil rather than Ithaca. Merge and redirect given we know have more sources. Capitalistroadster 05:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. As a resident of Ithaca and creator of the subject entry: Ithaca's nickname "City of Evil" dates back to its earlier name of "Sodom" and a road to Ithaca by that name still exists; the usage is neither new nor original with me, but has a long-standing history. Ithaca's reputation for liberal politics is huge, with both left and right acknowledging it as a nexus of liberal political activity. If you spell "Ithaca" correctly, the Google hits on the topic go way up (first commenter misspelled it): 644 hits. The "City of Evil" nickname is in common use locally and nationally, with both detractors and supporters of the city using it (the latter with cheerful ironic pride), so while it may originally have been intended as a slur, it has been reclaimed in the same sense that Wiccans have reclaimed "witch". This important transition and usage is sociologically notable, and hence (IMO) worthy of addition to the store of information about Ithaca. Respectfully submitted, --Dayglored 07:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, no merge as Ithaca, New York already covers topic. --JJay 08:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there are verifiable sources, they should be added to the article. At the moment, all we have is a Cafepress link. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. Good points, so I have added verifiable sources for the historical name, also corrected some context about the resurgent modern usage, and clarified the point of the entry, namely the dual usage of the same nickname by both detractors and supporters. The main article on Ithaca, New York originally had much unsuitable provocative POV material (if you think mine is POV, you should see how the earlier posts started) which I edited down extensively, and then decided to make a separate detail page for this particular aspect. However, the argument for a merge is compelling, and I would be pleased to merge the separate page under discussion here into the corresponding section of the main Ithaca article. Does that address the concern that landed this article in the "to be deleted" section? If so I'll do the merge. --Dayglored 09:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep or maybe merge. I don't know, seems interesting, could be a section of main Ithaca article, though. Needs to be cleaned up.--Kewp (t) 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Ifnord 18:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the current version both interesting and well-balanced. I had no idea the city used be known this way!

  • Comment by author. Thanks for the continuing excellent input; I'm learning a lot about how Wiki pages need to be done... BTW, I added a Yahoo-maps link to the remnant of an old road into the city, which still retains the old name "Sodom Rd." I presume that an interactive search link to Yahoo Maps is not considered a copyvio, although a snap of the resulting image might be; opinion/precedent? Thanks. --Dayglored 19:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Cool historical background, likely belongs on the main Ithaca page, redirect from Ithaca, City of evil. (Sorry, forgot to sign) Janet13 14:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect --Meiers Twins 10:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. Couple of minor edits for clarity and more balanced phrasing. Added a link for "City of Sin" to a page with a copy of an article/essay by Cornell Univ. Sr. lecturer and historian Carol Kammen (the original source page has gone 404). I plan to drive out and get a photo of the "Sodom Rd." road sign this week, to complement the Yahoo map link. -- Dayglored 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author. Added picture of Sodom Road sign (taken today). Contacted Carol Kammen (see comment above) by email to obtain additional sources and references; trip to library req'd, since most are not linkable on web at this time. -- Dayglored 23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Williams[edit]

Multiple reasons. 1) Vanity entry, only one edit and that by User:Jhwilliams (his only edit). 2) Not notable. No Allmusic entry for him, 368 googles for '"Jameson Williams" music' (many of which aren't about him), and the "Music" section on the article's one link includes no information except a picture of him "rocking the fuck out". I wish the guy luck, but Wikipedia isn't around to provide free ad space. -Colin Kimbrell 19:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is probably implied, but Delete. I'd say Userfy, but since it's his only edit, that's kind of pointless. -Colin Kimbrell 19:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless he decides to contribute to Wikipedia, in which case userfying is fine. - Mgm|(talk) 22:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Janky[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is a neologism at best. There is, at present, no chance that this can be expanded into an encyclopedia article. Revealingly, Urban Dictionary has an entry [17], which means we should almost certainly delete it. -Splashtalk 07:18, 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 05:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nationalist ideas in the feudal period[edit]

The lemma is wrong / the text is illegible / the content is not NPOV Mkill 23:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some of the crap User:Reader72 dumped in Wikipedia by now. Yes, some of his works can be kept, cleaned up, wikified, checked for misread historical facts and checked for right-wing propaganda (quote: Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy served as a good example for the Empire of Japan). But: This article can't.

  1. The lemma is wrong: There is no nationalist thinking in Edo Japan. Nationalist thinking came to Japan during the Meiji Restoration. Don't confuse the Kokugaku school with nationalism.
  2. We already have a lot of useful, (more or less) scientifically useful articles on the Edo period. We don't need this one. All work that goes into it is wasted. Yes, I say this as the person who just tried to make a useful article out of Edo period. -- Mkill 23:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If kept, add a "this article requires translating into english" tag. No, seriously. Indium 00:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Capitalistroadster 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 13:07, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese nationalist thinking during Yamato Empire[edit]

This is another contribution of User:Reader72. I cleaned up, wikified and improved some of his articles now. This one is hopeless. There is no nationalist thinking in Yamato Japan. There will never be. The whole article is some right-wing myth copied from some Japanese webpage. If we don't want all serious students of Japanese history out there to laugh (or cry) about Wikipedia delete this crap. Did I mention the English is worse than a machine translation? Mkill 23:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If kept, add a "this article requires translating into english" tag. No, seriously. Indium 00:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 13:07, 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 consensus (4d, 5r, 1m), defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Hill Episode Descriptions[edit]

Information in article is an inferior duplication of the information at List of King of the Hill Episodes Wikipedianinthehouse 23:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. --DalkaenT/C 00:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't redirect be better? Grutness...wha? 01:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. I took a look at what linked to the article, and only the King of the Hill article, a talk page, and deletion-related articles link to it. Redirection might be unnecessary. --DalkaenT/C 01:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Original article with data in tabular form is much more readable. Eddie.willers 01:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, more listcruft. --Dante (Δαντε) 03:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I find it better to remove all the text and redirect to the List of King of the Hill episodes, instead of deleting it. Then it would be possible to (easily) find the older versions of this page for reference. Removing this just wouldn't sound right. --FlyingPenguins 04:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I see no harm in that. 23skidoo 06:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Put with the list of episodes. The Republican 13:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of King of the Hill episodes. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text from this page was already merged with the List of King of the Hill Episodes. --FlyingPenguins 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, isn't it the rule that you have to leave a redirect there, instead of deleting it, for licence purposes? The history of who authored that stuff needs to be kept around. Jacqui ★ 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect (no one will search this term) and without merge (info already covered). Youngamerican 15:25, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KM06Group1[edit]

This article fails to explain why these people are notable in any way, seems like a mistaken attempt at a user subpage.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of jokes in The Big Lebowski[edit]

Delete - Do we really need a list of jokes for every film? Thelb4 21:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The opening sentence makes this original research. CanadianCaesar 21:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and totally unencyclopedic at that. Devotchka 22:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider The opening sentences are more like motivation to contribute to this list. Quoting Wikipedia:No_original_research: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." I'm not objective enough to judge if we really need a list of jokes for this film, which might legitimize (even worse) lists to others. Lior 04:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Devotchka. (And I'm not convinced that all of these even qualify as jokes.) TheMadBaron 13:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Devotchka. Chemturion 01:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with TheMadBaron. Unencyclopedic.--Dakota 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rejection Accepted. Have a nice day. Lior 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Flowerparty■ 02:38, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Luciferians[edit]

One-person list. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 03:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The definition of Luciferian here doesn't quite agree with the definition that the list uses. The Aaron Donahue there is some occultist crank, not a schismatic. Pilatus 03:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of references in Inkpool[edit]

Webcomic cruft, not to mention Glenn Kessler from the same comic was deleted for non-notability. Rampart 03:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 09:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. There is no article for Inkpool, nor should there be. As such, the list is meaningless. TheMadBaron 10:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glenn Kessler debate and per comments by TheMadBaron. - Mgm|(talk) 18:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A 'list of references' without any references? Flowerparty■ 02:29, 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 moot. It has been redirected to O.C. Episodes. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The O.C. episodes[edit]

There is an already duplicate article which is up-to date and with pictures. Sfufan2005 17:56, 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 dealt with by copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 15:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Arts In Christian Education[edit]

Individual degree programme at some unidentified institution. Uppland 09:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyright violation from [18] and so tagged. (I guess Union Theological Seminary counts as "commercial" in the sense that the school aims to make money from study fees.) Pilatus 12:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no, they have to be making money from the content itself for it to be a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added that to the tag itself (taken from copyright problems page). I guess no one reads it. -- Kjkolb 14:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Materium (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Warhammer 40,000 fancruft. Nominating under WP:FICT guideline, per second point. I do not recommend a redirect, as there is (at least in my view) no valid target. I assume the article was created as a match for the Immaterium (Warhammer 40,000) article, but the former has no real potential for expanding to the size of the latter, let alone purpose on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 12:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the consensus is to keep, I can certainly write an article under this title, which would contain a description of the breakdown of the Milky Way Galaxy in the 40K universe (placement of various races, 'notable' planets and sectors, empires, etc), but feel that this kind and level of information has no place on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 12:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If someone is really enthusaistic about giving WH40K the same sort of detailed coverage that, say, Star Wars and Pokemon and Gundam have, they're free to do so, but I don't think this is a good title for a description of the WH40K galaxy. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is, that's all it can be, beyond a line or two noting that it is the counterpart to the alternate dimension that is the Immaterum. It would be like trying to write and expand Realspace (Star Wars). Saberwyn 10:45, 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 not delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiola[edit]


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

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

MoroccoSecurityRulz[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Earthism[edit]

A recent (October 2005) neologism designed purely to disparage those concerned with global warming does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Two minor Oct 2005 asides and a reprint of [20] in the "Geelong Advertiser" completes LexisNexis hits. The originator is not notable enough to have his own page (yet), otherwise this could be redirected there. Rd232 talk 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some Google hits including an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Bob Carter see [21] While I agree with what he is saying, he hasn't yet become common usage so that we can have an article about it. Regretfully, I vote Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know why that month-old SMH article doesn't appear in Lexis; normally articles from major papers appear in a day or two at most. Rd232 talk 11:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a verifiable alternative view to the prominent views put forward by Tim Flannery; it is not merely diparaging those concerned with global warming. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it doesn't have wide spread usage, original research. -- Kjkolb 11:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Idiotic term, but it seems to be pretty widespread, at least for now. Google comes up with 765 hits on the term...is that enough to warrant inclusion? The problem is that I'm not sure it's widespread enough to be here. Devotchka 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologism, does not appear to be notable or in widespread use. Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 20:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as virtually unused neologism. Only 40 unique google hits, almost all quoting one guy, who coined it. My guess is that he uses it a lot on his blog or somesuch, which would account for the bloated figure when duplicates are included. --Aquillion 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not yet notable. Most of the Google hits are coming from copies of articles "Mother-earthism infects climate change debate" or "All the signs of full-blown Mother Earthism". pfctdayelise 00:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Aquillion and pfctdayelise. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 22:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movement And Action for Social Services[edit]

This seems to be an NGO that is only newly registered in New Delhi, India. As yet they don't seem to have done anything of note, and the page is a mess. Delete. Natgoo 18:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Vanity Non-notable Prashanthns 19:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also a copyvio. --JJay 19:22, 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 no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narn Bat Squad[edit]

nn internet meme with a whopping 155 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 155? Try 753 online and more than 3500 on USENET. The actual number is considerably higher due to non-archived message systems such as GEnie and CompuServe where usage was heavy. Additionally, nowadays "NBS" is used as frequently as the full name, however google doesn't assist much because of the rather common nature of the initials. Finally, most references to the NBS in fandom don't explicitly say "NBS" or "Narn Bat Squad" - but contain the elements of the NBS, namely a virtual beating, looking over the shoulder, etc., written after a bad joke. It is a significant element of Babylon 5 fandom, and has made in-roads to all aspects of sci-fi fandom over the last 11 years. Strong Keep --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost never use the dreaded term "fancruft" but I certainly think it applies here. Def of a joke term made up by online fans of a sci-fi show. Apparently never even used on the show itself. This is sub-sub-sub-trivial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately created by the creator of the show. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the article seems to say. Direct quote: "Fans immediately latched on to the concept, and combining it with past posts by Straczynski, dubbed group of Narns the Narn Bat Squad, or NBS." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the way the NBS operates, as a form of punishment for bad jokes, is a result of Straczynski's post. The NBS name was something assigned by the fans (and immediately wholehearedly accepted and used online by Straczynski); the NBS itself is Straczynski's. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's fancruft, but it's the notable kind because it was coined by the show's creator, and because it's seeped out of the fanbase into unrelated communities online, and that makes it the sort of thing that someone might look up the origins of. — mendel ☎ 04:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per mendel. If someone who knows where this crops up, in any major way outside the B5 fan community, and adds a paragraph or section on it, it would probably help the article's chances. Saberwyn 05:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you follow the google groups link above you see an immediate diversity of groups and languages where the reference is currently used (which, once again, does not include the wide use of the NBS acronym [or many, many instances where the NBS is referenced in practice but not in name]). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jeffrey O. Gustafson's comments.Indium 09:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Internet memes are inherently non-notable, and forum/message board/Usenet memes infinitely more so. flowersofnight 20:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3500 Usenet hits only marginally more notable than 3500 hits from the same online message board's website. If we had an article on Babylon 5 fandom, this could redirect there, but we don't. -Sean Curtin 04:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, that is just what says "Narn Bat Squad" - more say NBS, and most (nowadays) reference it without explicitly saying the name. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but would prefer to see it in an article on Babylon 5 fandom. If it had to be a fork off that article, so be it. --maclean25 05:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, makes no claim of existing much beyond one minor online forum. Andrew Levine 07:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement makes no sense. From the article: "Beginning on the Babylon 5 newsgroups and spreading to other science fiction newsgroups and internet forums..." And as clearly I pointed out above, just follow the google groups link to see the diversity of groups (and languages) that the NBS appear in, in name (with even more in practice). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nefertiti piercing[edit]

Delete copyvio from BME encyclopaedia (link). --Qirex 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; however, copyvio articles should be marked {{copyvio|url= ...}} and listed in WP:CV, not in AfD. Since the article is here now, I think it is just better to leave it here. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't know. I'd seen people use copyvio at AfD as a reason before so I just assumed. Thankyou for pointing this out. --Qirex 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, that sort of thing usually happens when someone nominates an article on the usual grounds and then later someone else notices that it's a copyvio anyhow. — mendel ☎ 17:36, 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 by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerur[edit]

Not notable. Tiny village in unspecified country. Dr Gangrene 11:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's in India. Concensus is that places are notable. Dlyons493 Talk 11:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons493 and general consensus: we have articles on "cities" in the USA that are half the size this village claims to be, and nobody complains about those. — Haeleth Talk 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haeleth. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworked the article to a higher standard of acceptability. If allowed to vote (I am guessing I can still vote as I did not write it, only re-worked it. I vote Keep Prashanthns 16:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty much all real villages, towns, cities, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Dlyons493. I originally requested the copyedit which appears to have been attended to by User:Prashanthns so hurrah. Budgiekiller 17:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- places are notable. Kudal is a well known place. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as real place with real communities of interest. Well done to Prashanthns for his rewrite. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dlyons493 and Haeleth. --Meiers Twins 10:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Good job! MCB 00:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as places are notable. Carioca 22:16, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Falkowski[edit]

NN radio host. Google search for "Paul Falkowski" KCRO gives an astounding 8 hits. Please note that this article and afd is not about the professor. Punkmorten 14:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Small time radio host does not warrant his own entry. Devotchka 17:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 13:01, 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 SPEEDIED by Jpgordon. Robert T | @ | C 00:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pflug[edit]

There is no such thing as "Pflugs." There is also no such language as "Pfluger." I know the person who created the article, and he admitted it was just a joke. See [22]. Whimemsz 19:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, perhaps speedy as little or no context. Jkelly 20:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is an explanation really neccessary? Dewrad 22:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied. Admitted hoax. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Pi Rho[edit]

plus redirect at Phipirho.

Fraternity founded three months ago with three chapters so far. I have not seen any notability criteria for frats so please advise. But killing a grizzly with bare teeth sounds like nonsense to me. -- RHaworth 02:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'd say, but I don't know enough about fraternities...what are the rules on them here? Only big ones? If this is to be kept, the fake stuff needs to be taken out. Devotchka 03:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of social fraternities and sororities --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Delete per Metropolitan90's assertion of unverifiability --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support articles about national fraternities ... but according to this fraternity's web site, they have only three members and one pledge. [23] The fathers of the fraternity described in the article (Father Phi, Father Pi, and Father Rho) are just the three members wearing fake beards. [24] The web site doesn't even state what college the fraternity is associated with, although their address implies it's the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (with no reference to the supposed two other chapters), but SDSMT does not have Phi Pi Rho on its list of student organizations. [25] Delete as non-notable attempt at humor. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any event, I've cleaned it up some so that the grizzly bear story is represented as the fraternity's "legend" of its founding rather than a factual history. --Metropolitan90 04:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, unverifiable, maybe hoax.--Kewp (t) 09:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90, unless demonstrated to be verifiable and well-known at least in Rapid City. (Newspaper articles?) Also, their contact address is a gmail account, not confidence-inspiring. "1619 Kellogg Place," even without a city, gets zero Google hits, although both Google Maps and Yahoo Maps do seem to be able to find it. Re verification: if I had a phone number for the fraternity, I could do a reverse lookup with Anywho and see what name and address it turns up. There is no (nonprofit) corporation named Phi Pi Rho chartered in Indiana. If I knew the state in which it is chartered and the name it is chartered under, that too would be easy to verify. It is easy to verify that Alpha Chi Sigma, another fraternity listed on the SDSMT website, is in fact chartered as a nonprofit corporation, once one knows that it is in the State of Indiana. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pi_eating_contest[edit]

Vanity and not notable. Could not find on Google.com. Kushboy 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Reads like an ad: "So far, we've made almost fifty movies. They range from horror to funny." "More coming soon!" Acetic'Acid 06:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 09:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First person, so it's either made up, written by them, or a copyvio. Indium 10:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it gets to stay, then I want a listing for Dad's movie studio (which shot in super 8mm format - those movies too ranged from funny to absolutly horrid). Stu 14:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical joke Prashanthns 15:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as vanity. Carioca 22:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy, but since it's already on User:Pikmin2000's user page, I went ahead and deleted it. Robert T | @ | C 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin2000[edit]

It's extremely non-notable, probably a vanity page. Also, it's very spammy. Modular 17:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possible spam, probably vanity. Fourohfour 17:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Okay then; Userfy if it was originally a user page Fourohfour 11:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. The article was initially at User:Pikmin2000 and then moved in the main space. The original place was the right one. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Good intentions, user even put it in the right place at first. Ashibaka (tock) 18:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. It was just fine where it was before. Oh, and apparently you can't view Neopets user pages when you're not logged in. Interesting. --Optichan 18:49, 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 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's law[edit]

This seems too esoteric. I don't really see how it could be expanded to a suitable length. Dante 04:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, neologism, vanity/fancruft. Cookiecaper 05:06, 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porn mosaic[edit]

This article is just a dictionary definition Vonspringer 21:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless someone wants to rewrite it completely. - Vonspringer 21:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a dicdef and probably a non-notable neologism as well. The effect is called pixelation and is not restricted to pornography. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to wikitonary. The Republican 14:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pray for the Soul of Betty (album)[edit]

Distributed by Koch Entertainment which claims to be the biggest indie label in the US according to its own article. External links to MTV and E!. Was incorrectly labeled as speedy. Bringing it here instead. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 21:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Band belongs to a guy who was on American Idol some time ago. I have no idea whether that makes it more notable or not. Devotchka 23:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. User:Lehla 02:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum-Touch[edit]

advertising for an alleged treatment that does get Googles. Dlyons493 Talk 21:12, 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. Robert T | @ | C 00:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residence of College Park[edit]

Advertisement for not yet completed condominium

  • Delete. Gazpacho 02:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Devotchka 02:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eadem. --Avery W. Krouse 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN--Irishpunktom\talk 14:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. PJM 00:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • College Park is a notable facility that probably merits its own article; a particular condo development within it does not. Delete it. Bearcat 08:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have an article about College Park, and as Bearcat says, we don't need articles about individual condo developments. Mindmatrix 15:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, whoops. I added one sentence to that article acknowledging the presence of condo developments in the park complex. That's as much attention as this particular topic needs. Bearcat 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw that addition in College Park (Toronto) and deleted it, thinking it had nothing to do with College Park. Didn't realize that there was this discussion here. Sorry, Bearcat. Will leave that discussion for College Park page. Skeezix1000 12:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge (relevant elements) with College Park (Toronto). E Pluribus Anthony 08:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable condo project. --maclean25 11:15, 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. Robert T | @ | C 00:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue Generating Sites[edit]

Consists mostly of non-notable information and external links to dubious sites. This AfD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Website Producer

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Once More[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If they make it, someone will end up writing an article about them. --Madchester 05:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 10:05, 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 DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sze[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmazian[edit]

Article appears to be a vanity article, that aside, importance of the company (they appear to have 2 storefronts) is doubtful X1cygnus 15:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - X1cygnus 15:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - vanity advertising. Gsd97jks 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity advertising. --maclean25 11:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not really in keeping with the rest of the site, is it? --alexthecheese 11:13, 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 no consensus, leaning towards merge. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sight transposition[edit]

dictdef, and very bare one at that. Tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. Delete unl;ess expanded to a decent stub at least. DES (talk) 01:07, 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 keep. Kirill Lokshin 06:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Snaps - S/T[edit]

No useful context, not encyclopedia material NHSavage 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete album info. Vague format. Non-notable Prashanthns 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Weak keep after re-work by Squell Prashanthns 11:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Skull Snaps and keep as album stub. It doesnt appear to be that non-notable, review, Amazon. squell 18:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited it into a proper album article. I've noticed some review sites actually compare other albums to this one, so they seem definately notable — I've never heard of them. Still, the article title needs to be changed. squell 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now agree with keep - it's a worthwhile article (should have googled for it shouldn't I?)--NHSavage 22:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah. It's an improved article now because you didn't. :P squell 23:25, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snurgle[edit]

  • delete - neologism ERcheck 01:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable or encylopaedic. -- JimR 11:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, and a dicdef to boot.  BD2412 talk 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - "These terms were coined by Matthew Durgavich and Lara Saipe while traveling from Boston, Massachusetts, USA to Chicago,Illinois, USA on very little sleep." Says it all. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:39, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary Magdalene Church[edit]

This is in fact a list of churches dedicated to Mary Magdalene. Even though she is the saint I worship most I can't see the point of having a list of churches dedicated to her. Pilatus 03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand real and verifiable church. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 03:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article doesn't document a real and verifiable church. It says that St Mary Magdalene Church is a church dedicated to St Mary Magdalene, and then has an external links section. — mendel ☎ 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CSD A3 (Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title.) These links would be far more useful at Mary Magdalene. --anetode¹ ² ³ 04:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Dante 04:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a web directory (speedy under A3 is fine too!). — mendel ☎ 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merge a few small lines about the popularity of dedicating churches to Mary Magdalene into the "veneration section" -- that is, if it isn't there already, but I didn't see any. The actual links to churches don't need to go in, though. Jacqui ★ 05:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand this list of churches dedicated to this saint.--Nicodemus75 08:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, and redirect to Mary Magdalene. Radiant_>|< 12:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Prashanthns 15:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand (or merge with Mary Magdalene) I can see nothing wrong with having a list of Churches dedicated to a person. --Doc (?) 15:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the purpose of this. An indiscriminate list would be akin to a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not, and a list of particularly well-known churches dedicated to Mary of Magdala would be silly. Remember: data!=knowledge Pilatus 02:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no "dictionary" in the world that has a listing of churches dedicated to any saint. A listing of churches dedicated to a Saint is, by definition, not indiscriminate.--Nicodemus75 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Kappa 17:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- DS1953 talk 03:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and merge into Mary Magdalene. Youngamerican 15:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless list.  Grue  19:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable churches. Carioca 21:37, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stetcon[edit]

Neologism. Word invented 7 months ago, on a blog.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stig Olai Kapskarmo[edit]

This article was kept back in January due to no consensus, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stig Olai Kapskarmo, however this needs revisiting. Some points about the over 400 municipal councils in Norway, the various councils are very big by international standards. Bærum has 51 members in the council [28], and being a councillor is not a full time job. Furthermore, none of the various positions he holds confer any notability, they are local interest organizations. Kapskarmo is probably a fine politician, but he is not encyclopedically notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless claims of notability are verified. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Google hits are copies of the Wikipedia article, plus insignificant stuff. -- Egil 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lincolnite 16:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like mr. Kapskarmo I'm from Bærum. I'm going with Delete. Punkmorten 13:19, 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. Robert T | @ | C 00:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superfraclistic[edit]

According to the article, this word has been "written down 21 times excluding this article." That surely makes it non verifiable. See WP:V. Chick Bowen 16:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nonsense. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Kappa 16:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete U.S. editors may not be familiar with David and Victoria Feckham. This side of the Atlantic we unfortunately are. Dlyons493 Talk 17:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Dante (Δαντε) 00:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by MacGyverMagic. Kirill Lokshin 06:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swick[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for madeupwords. feydey 19:27, 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 06:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Techie Gospel[edit]

While this makes sense as a sort of joke, Wikipedia ain't for jokes. Perhaps a move to BJAODN would be appropriate, but more likely, this page just needs to be deleted or userfyed to one of the people who ostensibly created it. FreelanceWizard 09:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN, or failing that, Delete. Dr Gangrene 11:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a prose parody of a religious text, and not even a semblance of an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 12:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wonderful joke. Makes good reading. But, wikipedia is not for jokes Prashanthns 15:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joke, belongs to BJAODN (unless it is a copyvio). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe BJAODN (is there a wikibooks jokebook, for the good jokes?) It may theoretically be a copyvio, but it's one of those gags that's been passed around for so long in so many slightly different forms that I doubt anyone would claim ownership of it. AJR | Talk 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let this one go... Com'on guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.194.157 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Boloney Ponies[edit]

Non notable band CambridgeBayWeather 07:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • High school band with no album or label? Nothing personal, since everybody's got to start somewhere, but they aren't notable enough yet. As such, Delete. Stick with it, achieve something in the field, and then we'll keep an article about you. Jefferson Airplane played my dad's high school prom, so you never know. -Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 21:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Invisible Japanese Gentlemen[edit]

non-notable anecdote DannyWilde 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, selected Graham Greene short stories are notable. Kappa 16:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the page to make it clear it was a novel, not an anecdote. Note that the version that was nominated [29] did not mention Graham Greene and made the story look as a sort of ethnic joke. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Excellent start. Jacqui ★ 22:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paolo Liberatore's rewrite. Short story by notable author. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the original article seems to have been a badly-written article about a notable topic, hence my delete call was in error. Suggest Closing this discussion forthwith, and Keeping the article. --DannyWilde 02:13, 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. Robert T | @ | C 00:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triskabiblios[edit]

Non-notable fiction. Ashibaka (tock) 18:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy the page itself asserts its own non-notability IT IS OF NO LASTING VALUE OR INTEREST. Dlyons493 Talk 19:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Fiction/ admits non-encyclopedianess. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons stated above213.190.42.88 14:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely useless article, as the article itself is completely nonsensical, but has semantic meaning. Very unfortunate that there is no speedy criterion for this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was a mixture of votes....no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T.T.[edit]

NN character from single game. Its a racing game. Characters are barely fleshed out enough to warrant a few lines, let alone individual pages. DooMDrat 02:05, 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 delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TuRtLe (Counter-Strike clan)[edit]

The article looks like gaming clan website vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The clan category thing could be useful if other clans were added, though. --CoastTOcoast533 17:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gaming clan vanity. Short of context. Self-promotion. - Mgm|(talk) 22:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeLeTe. I was hit #6 on their official GeOcI+IeS website. ∴ here…♠ 09:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 13:02, 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 06:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VC Eberstadt[edit]

Volleyball club with 80 members, but more importantly: It was deleted at the German Wikipedia in June. That discussion can be found here. Punkmorten 14:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Soll auf Deutsch zuerst irgendwas machen. Though, if I had 80 friends, I'd probably make a bio article. (hohoho) ∴ here…♠ 09:17, 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 06:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Website Producer[edit]

Page reads like a job offering (i.e. advertising) for a non-notable company. This AfD is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenue Generating Sites

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ween-O-Rama[edit]

I don't know how notable this is, but Google doesn't bring up much apart from Wikipedia mirrors. --Daniel Lawrence 21:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn/advertising (article was created a few weeks before the event).Indium 22:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both the above - and is that huuuuuuge image a copyvio? - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:24, 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 MOOT. The page has already been merged and redirected. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Liebermann[edit]

This stub article serves no purpose when all of the information in it (and more) is already in the main The Boys from Brazil article. Indium 02:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then Merge and redirect. No need to delete. Trollderella 02:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Just redirect if everything there is already in the main article. Devotchka 02:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Err. Sorry. I wasn't sure if that was permissable without voting on it first. Though now that I did this, should I wait five days, remove the AFD tags, or merge it now and just ignore this page? Indium 02:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone is going to vote differently, but you might as well leave it. Trollderella 02:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was unclear! I think you should go aheard and merge and redirect, but leave this discussion here 'till someone closes it! Trollderella 03:31, 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 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Gebre Loul[edit]

Now this one is a bit tricky. The article states that he was ISHR Prisoner of the Month in June 2005, but there are no sources to support it. The press section of ISHR says nothing about him. A google search for "Yemane Gebre Loul" +ISHR gives 1 - one - hit when excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Punkmorten 10:51, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_29&oldid=1081093509"