Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

Purge server cache

October 30[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ايران and مغان[edit]

Two articles in Farsi posted by the same anon. Have been on WP:PNT since October 16. The short English sentence is unverifiable and contradicory between the two articles. Physchim62 09:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have they been listed as needing translation for two weeks? If so, they should go. If not, they should be listed on the pages needing translations for two weeks and then brought here. Capitalistroadster 09:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their two weeks on WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Their two weeks are up. Alternatively, do we have a Farsi Wikipedia that might be interested in these articles. Capitalistroadster 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There is indeed a Farsi Wikipedia, but I see no point in foisting these articles off on its editors. If these articles are about a place in Iran, I'm sure they can write better articles about that place. --Metropolitan90 01:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, I should really have checked that before AfD'ing. The first article title, as fa:ايران , redirects to fa:ایران or Iran. The second article title does not have an entry on Farsi Wikipedia, but there is nothing that suggests to me that it is worth transwikying. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 10:07, 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4um[edit]

The article is about an internet forum, and according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Internet such articles are generally not notable. Before I cleaned the article, there was nothing important in the article, just a mention of cake and a link to a community pick. The forum itself is inaccessible to unregistered users. Foofy 07:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Foofy 07:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. - Shastrix 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination: a mention at Björk is sufficient. Tearlach 23:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per agreeance with above. M.C. Brown Shoes 05:59, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5 billion dead[edit]

NN band, as they admit in the article —Wahoofive (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Easy! Devotchka 22:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy NN, vanity. PJM 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wahoofive abakharev 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy NN, vanity. 01:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gadomski[edit]

del. vanit. nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He looks notable to me. There's plenty on him on Google. Devotchka 02:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, what exactly notable did he do? Also, 148 noninformative google hits is not exactly "plenty" mikka (t) 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll change mine to delete unless notability is established. (I got 251 Google hits for "Adam Gadomski", but that is probably not enough.) He does appear to have written a number of articles over the last few years or so, but it is hard to figure out exactly what he did. If someone comes along and explains why he's important, the article might be salvagable, though. Devotchka 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two hints with google: (1) try and go until the very last page of the google list of hist. YOu will be surprized how 32,000 hits turn into, say, 126. (2) Even brief pieces in google seacrh results show is there is written about importance of this guy (none in our case). mikka (t) 04:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, it looks like self-promotion to me. He's the author of a.. well, I can't tell what it is, exactly. I'm not surprised there's some google presence, since his web pages appear to have been around for several years. Having a website to promote yourself is not really a claim to fame. I'd say delete unless some significance is established. Discussion of his invention or theory or whatever it is by third parties would help establish verifiability. Friday (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can show notability. Let me further comment that the thing about academics is that what they do tends to be well-documented. If this guy is notable, it shouldn't be all that hard for someone to dig up proper references. -- Captain Disdain 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some form of discussion verifying notability is started. Karol 17:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak Expand possibly notable, but lack of content or notability leans me towards delete.  Ian13  19:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless meta-knowledge should also be deleted. I'm not meta-knowledgable enough to have an opinion, but Gadomski seems to have made a notable contribution to this art. --FRS 19:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure it's notable enough. So delete unless someone shows me otherwise. Marcus22 20:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Scholar turns up >25 hits [1] and his own page link from the article looks reliable enough and has over 100. Seems more notable to me than some others we've kept. Writing a lot in Italian makes him less visible unfortunately. Dlyons493 Talk 20:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More notable than most band articles we keep. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Meta-knowledge was created by the same anon who created this article. I still see no indication of widespread interest in these subjects, beyond whichever person decided to put this stuff into Wikipedia. Pick a random person with a graduate degree, and they'll show up on google scholar. Friday (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub. He is notable enough, and the point of stubs is to give a starting place for articles that could be useful. Even if the stub is brief, it encourages people to contribute, because it is basically saying "we don't know much about this, but we think it is probably worth knowing about." -- Foofy 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficient number of hits on Google. --PhilipO 16:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. Google reports 142 unique hits for "Adam Gadomski" and Google Scholar reports 26. In contrast, my own name gets 199 Google hits and 14 Google Scholar hits; people I know who are ordinary academics have from 25 to 100 Google Scholar hits. The evidence is that this is nobody in particular, salting Wikipedia with links to his own papers and writing about himself. Sorry buddy, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your personal promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmation based marketing[edit]

Term gives no Googles, promotes a company. Also see page history for tag reversion by anon. See also Mondonation

  • Delete Dlyons493 Talk 11:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first I though they were saying that they were the origin of the annoyingly ubiquitous rubber bracelet things, but they don't seem to be. As it is, total ad. Devotchka 16:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On some level, this does make sense, but I have never heard the term before. Stu 20:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism unless good verifiable references are provided, prior to expiration of AfD discussion, that show that this is a recognized term and a well-established marketing approach. The absence of any source citations create a presumption that this is original research and possibly advertising, as does the existence of only two Google hits, both related to this article, when searching on the exact phrase "affirmation based marketing". Dpbsmith (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 Keep (No consensus). --Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air National Guard Units[edit]

This has been tagged for deletion by User:Modular, who didn't leave a reasoning. Pilatus 18:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a great way to display the units of tha Air National Guard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.141.243 (talk • contribs) 12:37, October 29, 2005
  • Delete At this time, only Oregon Air National Guard and Illinois Air National Guard have articles (the other blue links redirect to Air National Guard). Maybe if someone wants to write articles on more of the units, this might be appropriate. --Rogerd 21:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 71.111.141.243 Kappa 05:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless list. The two National Guard units that have entries can go into Air National Guard. Pilatus 12:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then wikipedia will have no further need of information about air national guard units? Kappa 17:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every state fields a unit. Once there are substantially more than two entries on Air National Guard units those can be broken out into a List of Air National Guard units. As it stands, the article doesn't add information and is just a farm of contentless redlinks that really doesn't encourage creation of new articles. Pilatus 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless. Devotchka 16:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Is this listcruft, or part of something that does have merit? If kept, it needs not only more active articles to tie into it. Or is this a project that someone wants to undertake? Stu 20:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems rather pointless to me too. Moriori 02:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should be renamed to List of Air National Guard units if kept. I was going to vote Keep at first. However, since this is a US centric list that will be limited to the 50 states and maybe Puerto Rico, it is a finite list and might be better as a Category which already exists Category:Air National Guard. Vegaswikian 06:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as something that is noteworthy and organizationally correct. Jtmichcock 21:31, 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 Closed and resubmitted for new debate; the current debate has turned into a partisan political argument which has grossly clouded the basic issue. Bearcat 09:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shefman[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, false info. posted, no other vaughan councillor posted, involved in crimminal activity, speading propaganda, racist against some ethnic groups (see http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/canad-school.htm ), never served as national director of b'nai brith he was employed by b'nai brith in a minor role but was fired, fired from Ontario human rights commission, asked to leave and then he resigned as school trustee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy Keep (without prejudice against a legit AFD) - Anons who blank pages should not be able to nominate. The above cited story seems to actually give the person a little bump of notability. I think this AFD should be de-listed. After removal, if somebody else wishes to nominate them (based on them being merely a local politician), than I would respect that. --rob 11:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Seems to be factually correct as far as I can see. Motivation for original Vfd seems to be due to an argument and not in good faith. [2], [3] .--Alicejenny 11:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if kept then update with fatual information. to Thivierr, I am new here, I originally understood by blanking the page was the process to delete it (my fault for this). This page was brought to my attention from the B'nai Brith about the false information about the National Director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
    • Wikipedia is awfully forgiving of one-time mistakes. We generally don't call the first mistake vandalism. But you did it repeatedly, and you put a personal put-down as "fact" in the article itself. Then, you proceeded to remove a link to the page. Please realize repeated acts like this are not ok. Normally, local politicians like this don't get articles, but frankly, your convincing me this person seems to be notable, as he's gotten a lot of attention. --rob 12:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator is asked to please read User talk:64.231.242.98. --rob 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thivierr/rob, As I mentioned I am new here the changes I made I understood was the proper process. Wikipedia and yourself can do what ever you feel is correct but this page wit the incorrect info. about the National Director of b'nai brith was brought to my attention from the B'nai Brith as I am a member of b'nai brith Canada. Your other comment about the other change to another article was base on facts in local newspapers she admitted to this. It in not my oppinion. I beleive this Shefman article is posted for nothing more than to pursue his own politcal agenda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • The other article you are referring to is Susan_Kadis. In your first edit you changed the text "She" to "He". These types of changes are completely unacceptable. Also, please realize, its fairly easy to monitor these changes, and undo all of them, and take action to prevent further ones. --rob 12:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob you were referring to the "reason why she left change" not the "he" "She" change. The "he" "she" change was a mistake, I corrected it. look in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

Yep, it was a mistake. Yes, you did correct it. However, it taints your future edits in the eyes of others (me at least). Please, don't be surprised if subsequent edits are given a greater deal of scrutiny as a result. Also, in the "reason why she left", you put your *opinion" that her replacement was unqualified (with no citation of who said it). We go by a neutral point of view at wikipedia, not bias. You're not welcome to push a one-sided opinion in any article. When you stick the facts, and avoid your own personal opinion, you'll find your contributions welcomed. --rob 12:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob the change "reason why she left" was NOT my opinion I put the opinion based on local newspapers articles (they don't seem to be on the internet or I would give you link to them) Personally it doesn't matter to me, I just think the correct info. should be posted without a political agenda. Infact I like your idea of "future edits .... greater deal of scrutiny" I think all edits should need some kind of process to prove it is fact. I understand that this may be difficult to enforce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

First, getting an account, would be good, as it provides a better way for people to communicate with you. As it stands, any page you use, is shared with others (who probably don't care for the conversation). Second, you can still cite a source if it's a newspaper. Check out various other articles which do this, and take a look at WP:CITE and WP:V. Essentially, information such as publication name, date, page author, etc.. must be provided (especially if there's no url). If it's a quote, you put in quotation marks. You must make clear its an opinion *not* state it as fact. You must also show other opinions, including the subject of the article's opinion (which is probably the replacement was qualified). Around here, if something's unverifiable, than it's as bad as being false. As for enforcement, verifiability is easy to enforce. We just delete and revert unverifiable claims, as I did with the Susan_Kadis. I don't have to prove a claim is false to remove it, just that it's unverifiable, which is much easier. --rob 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel the man is legit based on what I could find in a couple searches. But the article does need a clean-up. BTW, This Wikipedian has a problem with non-registered users who Nom articles for VFD. Account names help to provide a Wiki-trail of sorts and is good courtesy. Stu 20:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. City council members are notable for Wikipedia purposes, per ample precedent. MCB 01:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I actually created the original of this article and was surprised to see it up for deletion. He was the 'National Director of the B'nai Brith League for Human Rights' If you'd like, call them up and ask them, but it is true. Second, even beyond his political career which is noteable in the community (fought for accountability and transperancy on a corrupt school board, recycling advocate at city council) and many expect him to challenge Mario Racco for the Provincial Liberal nomination in Thornhill. He was also a 'special advisor to the prosecutor' in the Jim Keegstra Hate Crimes trial in Alberta and is listed on Ernst Zundel's website as one of his detractors. Furthermore, he was never fired from B'nai Brith and was absolutely not asked to leave the School Board. Is he as noteable as Elinor Caplan or Paul Martin? No. But is he noteable enough for his own wikipedia entry? Absolutely. Remember, we are trying to build a massive resource here, with information for everyone. Edit: If you ask me, all of the Vaughan Councillors should have their own wiki entrys. pm_shef 05:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above is more false information posted from Alan Shefman's son. It's not a surpirse that all this info. came directly from the Shefman's. Delete Attempting to use this as a political tool, attempt to use to futher his so called human rights company, not notable (served only a few monthes as councillor) (no other Vaughan councillor posted that served for many more years.) If kept then info. should be confirmed with a reliable source (not confirmed with more false info. posted from the shefman's on other websites) and a more indepth description about his crimminal activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep and Expand Criminal Activity? Would you care to explain to us what criminal activity? Yes I'm his son, how does that matter? In fact, it makes me far more credible than you (as some random, unsigned person) in saying that he's never been arrested or done anything illegal. Again, if you'd like I would STRONGLY encourage you to call B'nai Brith and they would be more than willing to confirm this fact. Furthermore, I am currently in the process of writing articles for ALL the Vaughan Councillors. I feel they should all be represented here as one of Canada's largest and the fastest growing city in Canada. pm_shef 17:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob you are accusing me of "ballot stuffing"? I am responding to false information posted not stuffing the ballot. pm-shef we will see if this article is taken down and if it is kept up then I will post the crimminal activity backed with documents from the York Regional Police, Toronto Police, RCMP and B'nai Brith Canada. You are tring to say that your father is notable enough to have an article posted but he has to get his son to write it and defend it. I am all for keeping it up as long as more notable people are kept up. How can you justify Alan Shefman being posted who served only a few months as councillor and no other current councillor or current or former Mayors posted (I posted former Mayor Lorna Jackson the other day) or even other people like Andrew Stronach (Frank Stronach's son and brother to Belinda) who got deleted the other day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

Delete one more thing pm-shef the ONLY REASON you posted this article about your father was an attempt to use as political tool and to further his so called human rights company. If wikipedia doesn't mind people using them as a political pond and as free advertising for a questionable company then they should keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)


  • *rolls eyes repeatedly*, This is starting to get rediculous. Let me clear some things up.
    • Yes, I am Alan's son
    • Alan does not even know that this page exists, I wrote it after finding the City of Vaughan entry and noticing that none of the councillors had sites. Since obviously I know more about Alan than about the other councillors, I made his first, as I said before, I am in the process of making entries for the other councillors as we speak
    • I very much support your posting of a Lorna Jackson article, she is very deserving as one, as are a number of former and current councilors.
    • Finally, about this "only reason" junk, please get a grip. How many people do you think use wikipedia to find themselves a human rights consultant? Probably none. I posted this article for informational purposes, and if it is kept, I will expand it. Alan is a noteable person in Vaughan, and if it bothers you that much, I'll agree to remove the external link at the bottom.
  • Also, I very highly doubt you have any documents from the police. Especially since he didn't do anything illegal. And even if he did, the Toronto police don't have jurisdiction in Vaughan. Good try though

Though on another note, if anon votes don't count (which I wasn't aware of) then do we not have a unanimous "keep" decision? pm_shef 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


To Pm_shef I would send you a message privately but I don’t know how through here, so I will post it here. I am new and still don’t know how to use all the features here. I think this is getting a little ridiculous so this will be my last post here unless I am asked to answer a question.

It appears that we agree that if Alan Shefman’s article stays up then all the other members of Vaughan council should also be posted. You mentioned you will work on the others, I will also and we both could make changes as needed to all of them (that’s if councillors of a small city is notable enough for wikipedia which I think is questionable) I posted Lorna Jackson up and you appeared to agree with this posting. With all do respect I think we could agree that there are many prominent people in Vaughan much more deserving of an article than Alan Shefman. Among past Vaughan council members who do you think deserves a page? Susan Kadis and Mario Racco are already posted but not as past councillors as an MP and MPP. Do you think any or all of the following deserves an article. Former Councillors David Chapley, Bernie Green and/or Gino Rosati, what about former Mayor Garnet Williams? What about any other prominent Vaughan residents? The only others that I found posted are as following (there are probably more that I didn’t find). Former Chief of Toronto and York Region Police Julian Fantino (who is a personal friend) (wink, wink pm_shef), Former MPP Tina Molinari, Former Federal Tory Candidate Josh Cooper, Vaughan MP Maurizio Bevilacque, Vaughan MPP Greg Sorbara. You know wikipedia puts some derogatory remarks (that are based of facts) in articles, this can be found on the Vaughan page about Michael DiBiase and Julian Fantino’s page to name a couple. It should be no different with Alan Shefman’s.

On another note about your comment about Toronto Police don’t have jurisdiction in Vaughan. If a criminal act is committed within their jurisdiction (Toronto) the city that this person resides in (Vaughan) does not matter in certain criminal acts (for example some none violent crimes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)


  • First of all, Vaughan is not a small city it is the 10th largest City in Ontario and the fastest growing municipality in Canada. Second of all, yes I think former Mayor Garnet Williams deserves a page, though I personally don't know enough about him to write it. David Chapley and Bernie Green did nothing of any note for the community, though if you were to demonstrate that I'm wrong on that point then I would consider not objecting to their posting. I'm not quite sure why you "winked" at me after Fantino, neither I nor my father know him beyond in his capacity as former Chief of YR Police. Furthermore, if Josh Cooper has a site, after having done absolutely nothing of note besides running, and losing for Federal office, then why on earth shouldn't Alan? Also, you do seem to have a personal grudge against Alan for some reason, care to tell why? or who you are? pm_shef 23:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pm_shef this will really be my last post. With a population of 235,000 Vaughan is still considered a small city, saying it’s the 10th largest in Ontario is not really saying much. In ten years or so it should be in the same category as say Mississauga. I think that Josh Cooper’s article was appropriate to be posted last year when he was a federal candidate but I think it should be deleted now, I think you would agree. I agree if Cooper deserves a page then Alan Shefman or almost anyone does but I let you know about Cooper because I was trying not to be biased. I will write an article about Garnet Williams, David Chapley, Bernie Green, Gino Rosati and maybe some others that I can think of that contributed to the growth of Vaughan if Vaughan Councillors including Alan Shefman stays up. I don’t mean this as an insult but you may be a little to young to realize this. Chapley and Green were the backbone of establishing the Thornhill we know today. Either Chapley or Green should be the Ward 5 councillor now, not Alan Shefman. If Alan Shefman’s page remains up then I will explain how he became Councillor. Notice how on Mario Racco’s page it mentions “under controversial circumstances” when he lost an election. Who you claim that Alan Shefman will challenge for the Liberal Provincial seat in 2007. Why doesn’t Alan Shefman challenge Susan Kadis for the Federal Liberal seat? He would have a better chance of beating her than Racco. It wasn’t that long ago that Racco beat Kadis. I winked because I know Fantino. I don’t have a grudge against Alan Shefman I just don’t think he deserves an article here or for that matter any Vaughan councilor, maybe the Mayor deserves a page. I live in Thornhill but I am sure you figured that out, last year my lawn had a green sign that kept disappearing. Lucky for me I put up a surveillance camera to see how they kept disappearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • *raises eyebrow* So now you are accusing him of a crime. I suggest you be very careful with what you say, that could very well be considered slander. Once again, I challenge you to provide evidence of any real contributions Chapley or Green made to the City of Vaughan. I'm not aware of these "controversial circumstances" that you refer to, and since it wasn't in Thornhill, I am positive that neither Alan or Susan had anything to do with it since they are both Thornhill politicians. You also say that "either chapley or green should be ward 5 councillor now." Why exactly? What have they done for Thornhill? Furthermore, it seems to me that Alan received a clear vote of support from the electors, with almost 10% more votes than Green and over 10% more votes than Chapley in a field of 13 candidates. Really, I think your above comment proves that the afd nomination was totally politically motivated and should be discounted pm_shef 04:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about Mario Racco's page saying "controversial circumstances" was just saying that they put these kind of comments up not that Shefman or Kadis was involved in Racco's lose. You have got to agree that Alan Shefman became a councillor under what is mostlikely the most "controversial circumstances" ever in Thornhill. Chapley or Green should be the councillor based on there past accomplishments and past experience alone. Alan Shefman was quoted and admitted himself in an article in the Vaughan Citizen and the Thornhill Liberal that he wouldn't have become councillor if it wasn't for the interference of Susan Kadis. Let me correct you, Shefman didn't get a clear vote of support it was Kadis that got it for him. Please answer my question about why Alan Shefman would challange Mario Racco for the Liberal Provincial seat and not challenge a weaker (based on results when Racco and Kadis ran against each other) Susan Kadis for the Federal Liberal seat. I think you would agree the Federal Liberal seat is a lot more secure than the Provincial Liberal seat. Many expect that Tina Molinari will be re-elected Provinicialy regardless if Racco, Shefman or Kadis runs Provincially. Is it possible to post a video clip on here? The accomlishements of Chapley and Green far and away exceed the accomlishments of Shefman and Kadis. As I mentioned before if councillor articles are posted then I will post Chapley and Green who are much more deserving of articles than most of the current councillors. I really don't think councillor article are appropriate for here, the only ones that I think are appropriate are Susan Kadis as MP, Mario Racco as MPP, Mayor Michael DiBiase and former Mayors Lorna Jackson and Garnet Williams I think you have proven that the only reason you posted an article of Alan Shefman was politically motivated, you mentioned yourself that he is planning on challenging Mario Racco which he will not stand an chance of beating Racco. P.S. you did a good job in cleaning up the Lorna Jackson article. It looks great!


  • Once again, you have not proven anything. Especially since I said that all the current councillors should have pages. I asked you before and I'll ask you again, exactly what accomplishments to Chapley and Green have? Honestly, wikipedia isn't your personal vendetta site, if you dislike him so much, make your own webpage. On another note, how long does this thing go before a decisions is made? pm_shef 16:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The process requires that the debate be open for a week. Bearcat 08:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, the established precedent is that city councillors should only be on here if they (a) serve on the council of a major metropolitan city that's internationally known (i.e. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver), or (b) are already notable for other reasons and their city council term is just an extra detail. A senior director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission meets criterion b, so keep this, but the precedent does not support a blanket permission to write up everybody on Vaughan's city council. A city of 235,000 people does not qualify for criterion (a). (Mayors are a different policy entirely; the precedent is much more unequivocally in favour of mayors having articles.) And by the way, this page is to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the article, so can the debate about the fundamental merits of his entire political career and kindly stay on the topic. Bearcat 08:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the last comment about the criteria just to make sure I understand about criteria for Alan Shefman’s article. (1) I understand that as a city councillor of a smallish city his article does NOT meet the criteria (2) A Senior Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission does meet the criteria but in order for this article to stay posted it must (A) be proven that Alan Shefman was director of communications and education for the Ontario Human Rights Commisission and (B) prove that this position was a Senior Director’s position. I have doubts that this position was and/or he was a Senior Director, lots of positions within Governement have “fancy” names to make them sound better than what they really are. I myself was a Census Commissioner for Statistics Canada which I can admit myself was a position that was nothing special or notable as every area in Canada had there own Census Commissioner with this title. I would estimate that there was about 450 to 500 people in Canada with this title during the 2001 Census. If Alan Shefman’s article stays then I will post an article of myself based on my “Census Commissioner” position with Statisitcs Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

  • No, you won't. By your own admission, "Census Commissioner" isn't a high-power and high-profile job; it's one that about 500 other people hold at any given time. Being a senior director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not an equivalent position; it's high in the org chart, has a lot of authority, and there are never more than a handful of them. Keeping of this does not grant you precedent to write about people who've held minor positions, and for that matter, Wikipedia expressly disallows people from writing an article about themselves. Bearcat 20:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point I agree with your totally my profile does not belong here just as Alan Shefman's does not, please keep in mind that (a) Alan Shefman's article was posted by his son and (b) he never held a senior directors postion with the Ontario Human Rights Commisission he held a postion that is held by a few hundered people at any given time which is not a high-power nor high-profile position. If you are trying to say that his old position is more senior than his current position, let me ask you. Why would he take so many steps backwards in his career path, going from a so called "senior position" to self employed to school trustee to city councillor in a small city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

The Ontario Human Rights Commission most certainly does not have a few hundred Directors of Communications and Education at any given time; it has one. And for the record: Wikipedia AFD is not a place where you have the right to wage a POV war on someone you personally don't like. You say your piece once and then be done with it; you do not post an individual response to every individual comment that gets posted here. And you are required to sign your comments; you can do this by typing ~~~~ at the end. Oh, and by the way...if you so much as BREATHE on the Susan Kadis article again, you can consider yourself banned. Bearcat 21:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for correcting your mistake on Susan Kadis's page. It looks good now as what is posted is the truth. If Alan Shefman's page stays because of his so called "senior directors" position with the Ontario Human Rights Commission then I will post all 200 or so current "senior directors” and as many as I could find of past “senior directors” of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. By the way, I was employed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in the early 1980’s. My title was “Assistant Deputy Minister” The over 200 people across the Province within the Commission with the title “Director” in there name reported to me and was my responsibility. You still did not answer my question about why would Alan Shefman take so many steps backwards in his career path if he held such a high power position with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The answer is because it was not a senior position. I guess I could get my son to list my profile here as I held a more "senior" position (even though I don't think I am notiable enough to have an article) than the so called "senior directors"

Here is a link to the role of “Assistant Deputy Minister” this is from the province of Alberta, http://www.pao.gov.ab.ca/learning/corpexec/adm-profile/role-of-the-adm.htm , it is similar to Ontario, I just couldn’t find anything from Ontario on the internet. They don’t even list the “directors” because it is not a senior position and is to low in the “ranking of positions” “directors” position within the government is similar to being a department manager at a department store or a grocery store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

I have added a little more information to this page. He was a member of York University's Board of Governors. I think he is notable enough to stay here. Keep. --YUL89YYZ 22:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to again agree with Bearcat, this is relevant and the director position is senior. In fact, there is only one person who occupies position of Director of Communication and Education. That person works directly under the Chief Commissioner (the head of the commission) so to say that Alan's position wasn't senior is foolish. Anyways, I added more information, specifically about the help he gave to the prosecution in the Keegstra trial in Alberta and also info about the by-election in 2004 when he got elected... i thought that would make the article more relevant. pm_shef 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I should advise you as well that while Wikipedia doesn't specifically disallow such a thing, for purposes of maintaining objectivity and neutrality it's best if people don't write articles about their own family members. Much like the idea of writing about yourself, which is more explicitly frowned upon here, it's generally best to stand back with the understanding that if a direct relative of yours is genuinely notable enough to have an article, someone else will eventually write one. Bearcat 18:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I wasn't aware of that, this was the first article that I'd written on Wikipedia, and I'll be sure to be more careful next time. That being said, there's no reason to delete this pm_shef 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reveiwed all the comments and I would say that this article should be deleted User: 67.70.151.219

Note: The comment immediately above was the user's third-ever edit under the signed IP number -- #1 was to the article itself and #4 was to Lorna Jackson, the mayor of the very same city whose council includes Mr. Shefman. This edit pattern strongly implies that the user has a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. And considering that this user's second edit was to an obscure unelected political candidate who ran against Susan Kadis (yep, her again) in the 2004 election, I'm now convinced that this was essentially a partisan political attack from the outset.

I'm hereby invoking admin power to close the current debate as an irreparably tainted discussion from which a viable and honest consensus cannot realistically be determined. I will renominate the article on procedural grounds for a clean discussion. Bearcat 08:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. (2k, 2d) - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance (novel)[edit]

There are very few books that ought to have an artilce before they have even been published. i see no reason why this should be one. Delete and recreate or merge into an article about the series after thje book is published. DES (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Agreed. Devotchka 20:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. There isn't a main article about this series. The books by this man have been quite notable, as he is a primary Star Wars author. The Wookieepedian 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There should be, and in fact there is an article about the first sub-series, which may expand into an article about the whole series. I agree that the author is quite noteable, his non-Starwars books are generally reagerded as very good indeed in the SF world. But unpublished books by even quite notable authros are usually not proper subjects for artilces unless ther has beena great deal of public comment and interst in the specific book. None is documented in the artilce for this one, which seems to be based entirely on publisher handouts and/or the author's public statemetns. DES (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Because of the way Star Wars books work with series in series this book is really a Stand alone book. The book was announced here[[4]]. There is a lot of public interest[[5]]. This book is major and if you do delete it the article will just be remade.--User:Jedi6 November 1, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was (11k, 9d, 2m) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hospital[edit]

non-notable hospital. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, established hospital. Kappa 04:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Established is not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Yes it is.
      2. Requiring notability is not policy. Kappa 19:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may not be written policy, but it's fairly much de facto policy. In fact, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents, the word "notable" (or "notability") is used no less than 35 times. You yourself have used the argument that schools are "inherently notable". Well, you can't have it both ways, Kappa. Denni☯ 03:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't require notability, but obviously I vote to keep anything notable. Kappa 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • We obviously have different definitions on what is "notable". Is there a possibility of us finding consensus? I would much rather have you as an ally than an enemy. Denni☯ 04:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNon notable.--Dakota
  • Keep as notable hospital in northern Iowa. 14,600 Google results including media results see [6]. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please tell me what, exactly, is notable about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. btm 09:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as per Zoe. Creating an Iowa Health System page and inclusion as an entry may be preferable. Movementarian 10:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. --Explodicle 17:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe. Almost every hospital will have a lot of search results, but that does not make them notable. A hospital might be notable if it does unusual work or is a highly regarded research institution. Allen Hospital is not that kind of hospital, and is rather small, too. There's 6,000 hospitals in the United States, and probably 5 to 10 times that many in the world. In addition, articles on hospitals need periodic updating, which would be an enormous task with so many articles. Lists of hospitals by state would be large, but far more manageable. Even a table with basic information, like the city, number of beds and any specialties, like neonatal, would be preferable. -- Kjkolb 17:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. While I see that some people find this to be a non-notable hospital, I'm sure that it matters to the community which is served by it. As for the argument that someone will have to monitor the hospital listings and monitor, isn't that what Wikipedia is, a community of people who contribute where and when its needed? C'mon, small communities matter, too. Stu 20:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the 50,000 hospitals across the world qualify for a WP article under our usual notability standards. This hospital is one of them. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite the relevant policy page that says what our usual notability standards are so I can judge that for myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no such policy, which is why I used the term "standards". When something has or is affecting the lives of thousands, we generally consider it to be notable. We are currently working on a policy for companies; using the same principles, a hospital with 230 beds and 900 babies delivered each year will more than likely pass such criteria. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here, watch this:
      1. I, Shane, am verifyable. Ask anyone. I have documents.
      2. I do not, in any way, deserve an article on wikipedia.

Interesting, no? --InShaneee 23:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, you do. The mere fact of a phenomenon's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 01:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    InShaneee:
  1. How many people have used your services?
  2. How many lives have been affected by you?
  3. How many years have you been a prominent institution in your community?
  • With all due respect, most hospitals are more deserving of an encyclopedia entry than you, InShaneee. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't comment about how many people has used my services, and I'm not arguing that a hospital is more notable than me. The question is, how MUCH more? The only arguments I'm seeing for it's inclusion is that A. It's verifyable (which I am too) and that B. Lot of people have used it (which is true of each and every one of my dorms bathrooms). I'm just saying that if you're going to draw a line of precendent in the sand here, it could stand to be a bit clearer. --InShaneee 00:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair comment. We are trying to come up with this line in the sand for corporations in WP:CORP. Please join the discussion there--I would welcome your opinion! Owen× ☎ 01:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe and Kjkolb. MCB 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 01:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone comes up with something notable about this hospital, where "notable" means something that "distinguishes" it from thousands of other hospitals. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that distinguishes it from other hospitals is the fact that it's Allen Hospital in Waterloo, Iowa rather than, say, Wirth Osteopathic Hospital in Oakland City, Indiana. Kurt Weber 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is notability the chief criteria for keeping articles on Wikipedia, or are we here to voice our comments based on the merit of the subject? If Wikipedia is simply a place to record the notable, then does that make Wikipedia nothing more than a validation of popularity? If so, then the value of Wikipedia is greatly deminished and I for one hope not. Stu 02:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability isn't the chief criterion; it's not officially a criterion at all, although it has been a de facto criterion AFAIK since Wikipedia began, certainly for the last two years. Notability is not at all the same thing as popularity. Notability is "The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice." Popularity is "The quality or state of being popular, especially the state of being widely admired, accepted, or sought after." In the United States, Osama bin Laden is not popular, but is very notable. The composer Arnold Schoenberg is also unpopular but notable. It is possible to establish somewhat objective guidelines for what constitutes notability within a given field, and this has been done for music, biographies, and some others. There are however many fields where Wikipedians are unable to agree on such criteria, and on these, articles must be decided on a case-by-case basis and the decisions can be contentious in the case of borderline articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I do not work in the medical industry, 250 open heart procedures per year sounds notable. Yamaguchi先生 03:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Weak articles or stubs are not reasons to delete an encylopedic article. Vegaswikian 06:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hospitals are at least much more notable than schools (which, for better or worse are always kept now). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schools get deleted all the time, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bethel Church Sunday School. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article was about a sunday school, that is, a church program, and not a school in the traditional sense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't say that hospitals are as notable as schools except for very large hospitals in metropolitan areas (I don't think schools should have articles either, though). My hometown of 45,000 has 3 hospitals, but only one high school. -- Kjkolb 21:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hospitals unless they (A) play a pivotal role in the development of modern or historical hospital care, or (B) are independently notable as a research institution. This article does not make such assertions. flowersofnight 14:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with any geographical area that this would best fit into. Not enough notability established for an article yet. Karmafist 16:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Iowa Health System, and can the arguments which go "If we're going to keep articles about (insert drek here), then we should also keep articles about (insert additional drek here)." That's just an argument to descend to a dark and ugly morass. Please let's not go the insane route we've gone with school articles! Denni☯ 03:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough information in the article for me to draw the conclusion that this hospital merits an article, but I don't agree that every private medical facility that is labeled a "hospital" necessarily deserves an article. -- DS1953 talk 05:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks global importance --redstucco 09:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete What person would need to know more about the historical relevance of this *particular* hospital and would gain insight into the larger topic by reading about this particular example? It's not notable. If X open heart proceedures a year is notable then, it deserves to be explained why that number is notable. That explanation would then belong on a page discussing open heart surgeries, not on pages for every hospital on the planet which meets this criterion. The hospital is not notable in the encyclopedic sense, no one is voting the hospital itself off the island. Pete.Hurd 20:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to be able to know more about the history and role of this particular hospital. Kappa 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) few other users are likely to have this need, (2)you can't find that out from the information that is here, and (3)if the history of other institution-stubs is evidence, you're not likely going to be able to in the future. I'm also questioning if you'd really like to know more about this specific hospital, or if you'd like to know more in theory about hospitals in general. Can you clarify your position? Denni☯ 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Blumenfeld[edit]

Voting[edit]

I question the notability of the person covered in this article; non-published writer, entry non-encyclopedic ; does not meet criteria in WP:BIO Ianb 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

please don't delete this page! Amir is awesome and really funny. his website is read by hundreds of people daily, and he is a role model for young jews everywhere!

There is no reason to delete this page. Amir Blumenfeld is the co-author of a book and that qualifies him for a wikipedia page. The people need to know who this man is. Note: written by anon 71.123.76.92 who blanked this page Karol 13:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Just because his website is popular, doesn't mean he should have an article. For example, Mugglenet is read by thousands of people daily, but Emerson Spartz doesn't have his own page. Thelb4 16:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
^ Yes he does you can click on his name and view his page. This amir guy should have a chance to have a page as well as anyone else who wants to post information about themselves this is the internet a source of information if you don't find it useful to you then don't look at the page but it should be allowed up.


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

yes he does its linked lol and amir is awesome

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anantesa[edit]

Article does not correspond to any known name or term in Hinduism (known to me and my references anyway). It's possible that it was meant to be Anantasesa with an omitted syllable. Google references derive mostly from this article. Imc 23:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons given above. A redirect would not be appropriate if it is a missing syllable. Imc 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can verify and contextualise. There are fragmentary references to One of the eight Vasus who serve Indra (the supreme god in Vedic myth). But it seems the eight names vary from one account to another. Dlyons493 Talk 13:09, 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 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assembler code example of parity calculation[edit]

I'm not convinced this is a topic for an encyclopedia, wikipedia is not a handbook for assembler programmers. Even if it were, however, this article isn't right. The sample code doesn't compute the parity in the manner an assembly programmer would need it. See the talk page talk:Assembler code example of parity calculation for discussion. RJFJR 18:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic, better suited for a tutorial or "how-to" manual than Wikipedia. Stu 19:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a how-to. Devotchka 19:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we transwiki it to Wikibooks? Thelb4 21:16, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the unification of Islam and Eastern Orthodox Christianity[edit]

This entry seems to be an obvious hoax. Google comes up with nothing and the entry was created by an (apparently Muslim) user which was only active a single day. His other edits have no material content or are merely corrections of Arabic spellings.Valentinian 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Valentinian 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything I've found on Google is a mirror. NN. Hoax. Devotchka 22:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no vote (yet). Devotchka is correct. In a Google search I found dozens of articles by the same title but they were ALL Wikipedia mirrors. (I didn’t know that there were quite so many sites feeding off Wikipedia.) I did find a very few hits with searches like “unification of islam and christianity” and some variations but none of those results hit to the “Association...” named in this article. There seems to be some sort of movement within Islam—small, perhaps, but big enough to get some attention—for unification of all the major monotheistic religions, or all religions, under the banner of Islam. I did find one site that was the text of a fatwa denouncing this movement and proclaiming that it was completely against Islam. ♠DanMS 05:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:V. If it does exist, it would still have to be proven to be notable. Capitalistroadster 05:31, 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bcbud[edit]

Not sure what the intent of the article is; seems to either advertize or attack the organization. On top of this, the article is very poorly written. I initially attempted to have it speedy deleted, but the creator removed the speedy tag, so I decided to take the more formal route by listing it on AfD. Recommend Delete. -- Spring Rubber 08:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Speedy delete. I deleted it. I will close the discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 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.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Bungas slang[edit]

The article is about a very specific local bit of slang, possibly for as few as 3-4 people. Google searches show no evidence that this is not a nest of neologisms. CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism in the true "coined by a psychotic" sense: "Of course none of these terms have any meaning as expressed in the absence of definition above. There are no grammatical rules to govern the slang. Any of the bungas words can be interchanged with any other word. With experience, meaning can be infused." Indium 06:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn local neologisms at best; hoax/nonsense at worst. MCB 01:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not "inherently notable". Denni☯ 03:58, 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.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buttmonkeys[edit]

A garage band from Australia. Pilatus 13:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:V and WP:NMG. No evidence that they meet our musical notability guides and a Google search shows a UK band of that name but not an Australian one see [7].

A search for Buttmonkeys Melbourne failed to come up with anything relevant see [8] Capitalistroadster 18:49, 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, (2d, 1k, 4m) leaning to merge. - Mailer Diablo 17:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bowers[edit]

Blogger who appears to be unknown (by google hits) outside of his blog site BrainyBroad 05:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable.--Dakota 05:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. One of the founders of MyDD one of the most notable leftwing blogs see [9]. Over 85000 hits for "Chris Bowers" many of which relate to him see [10]

According to the Truthlaidbear, this site is in the top 40 in terms of traffic see [11]. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MyDD may be popular, but that doesn't translate to Mr. Bowers needing his own page. Only roughly 8 out of the first 4 pages of google hits may refer to him. (There are an awful lot of other Chris Bowerses out there.) I wouldn't oppose "keep & cleanup" if there was anything else to say besides "He writes for a popular leftwing blog." BrainyBroad 06:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Bowers not needing his own page doesn't translate to a delete, though. It translates to a merge. Jacqui ★ 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to MyDD. Andrew Levine 07:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied this as an A7, then I realized an editor had objected to a speedy alreasy on the talk page. I personally think it's an A7, but since there's disagreement, delete slowly. Maybe the website is significant, I can't tell from the article. But this guy is "a blogger" for it? No reason for an article here, in my opinion. A redirect doesn't seem neccessary either. Friday (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MyDD which is a pretty popular political blog, invited to the Democratic National Convention in Boston last year. Jessamyn 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with MyDD. Notability and verifiability already established by above. However, there's not much to actually say about MyDD unless you include its writer in it, as that's who's asserting the opinions, etc. Jacqui ★ 15:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Sdedeo 01:04, 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 speedy keep. – ABCD✉ 05:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CIA leak grand jury investigation[edit]

We already have plame affair, cheneygate, and now cia leak grand jury investigation. I recommend this article be deleted as per deletion policy. (Bjorn Tipling 21:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The case for keeping: "Cheneygate" was a trashy fork that has been overwhelming (and properly) voted to be redirected merged -So its rather insincere to include "Cheneygate." Now all you have left is the "Plame affair" and the "CIA leak grand jury investigation", which though are quite directly related, are nevertheless different things. This is a complete no-brainer (hence the delete votes should reconsider) The "Plame affair" (aka "CIA leak scandal") is a term that refers to the political scandal and its origins going back almost three years. The "CIA leak investigation" (not "scandal") is about the proper and formal investigation which began only two years ago, and has been rather quiet until recent events. The CIA leak investigation is a formal aspect of the larger Plame affair. Keep. -St|eve 00:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. (Bjorn Tipling 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bjelleklang - talk 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have an article on Plame Affair. If it were to be kept, it should be renamed to Fitzgerald Inquiry. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - per reason stated above "case for keeping" -St|eve 00:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! - I am going to defend this article. This is my first article. I started this article on Oct. 12 as a way to gather and organize information about the CIA leak grand jury investigation. About the people, places, and process of the investigation. Before I started it I contacted several people that had been editing Plame Affair. I also put a note on the discussion page that explained my reasons for starting the article. There were no negative comments. This article is different from Plame Affair, which has a lot of political content. This article is a very bare bones article with little narrative, and no long narrative. It is a collection of information about the Special Attorney, Deputy Attorney, the lawyers of record. It is about the laws, the lawyer, and the court. I have started a half a dozen articles that link to this page. And expanded about a half dozen more that link to this page. There has been no negative comments about this page. Also, there has been no POV in this article. I spent a great deal of time, over 20 hours, researching the attorneys and courts. I verified every fact including emailing a law firm to verify information. I have read the rules for deletion, and do not see why this page would qualify.--FloNight 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This clearly should not be listed on AFD. The only question is whether the content of CIA leak grand jury investigation should be in its own article or whether it should be contained within Plame affair. Personally, I think it should remain in its own article, given the size of Plame affair already, but it would be nice if someone could make a section in there with an overview and a "Main article: CIA leak grand jury investigation" link. --Stormie 00:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty obvious case for keep IMO. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Plame affair is pretty huge already (#93 on Special:Long pages), and probably should be turned into a main article with the sections spun off into their own articles, not have more content merged into it. -- AJR | Talk 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because a merge would be unwieldy. What is it in the deletion policy that says this should be deleted? That I do not understand. Yamaguchi先生 03:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see how this is a different matter than Plame affair. Can one of the people voting "Keep" explain the difference, because neither article seems to claim being a distinct matter from the other. Andrew Levine 03:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the criminal investigation should have a separate article than the larger controversy. zen master T 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, the expanding CIA leak scandel has spilled over into serveral articles, which is only natural given the gravity and scope of the case and on-going investigation. This article is focused on the Grand Jury investigation, while other articles focus on specific persons of interest, legal matters, overview of the CIA Leak Case, Plame affair. None of the articles mentioned are duplicative, nor is this one. I see no good groups for deletion of this article. Calicocat 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Recommend speedy remove from AFD. Currently at 3 delete, 4 keep. Suggest remove when keeps double deletes. -St|eve 01:43, 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 Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Circle[edit]

not encyclopedic, this is just a road. cohesion★talk 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As he says. Pilatus 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete, WP:NOT a travel guide. Proto t c 11:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure this even rises to the standards of "just a road." A search for "Collins Circle, Albany, NY" on maps.yahoo.com results in "Collins Circle could not be found." A similar search on Mapquest does not find "Collins Circle" and suggests "Collins Place" instead, which turns out to be a straight road which is in Zip Code 12208 and nowhere near the University at Albany's campus at 1400 Washington Avenue, which is Zip code 12222, nor the one at 135 Western Avenue, which is in Zip code 12203. Mapquest does show a circular roadway of some kind near 1400 Washington Avenue on the campus, but while other campus roads are named ("Carillon Drive E.", "University Drive West") this one is not. Wait, Google Maps identifies it as "Evan Revere Collins Circle." However, a regular Google search that phrase shows "Your search - 'Evan Revere Collins Circle' - did not match any documents." I have to think this is just a driveway. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL! You really went to the wall, Dpbsmith. Hopefully, your efforts will dissuade the more enthusiastic inclusionists from pressing too hard to keep this one. (Oh, delete.) Denni☯ 05:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is almost like writing an article on the circular driveway in front of my dorm. Jacqui ★ 04:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpbsmith --redstucco 09:59, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Chapel[edit]

A Richmond congregation associated with the Assemblies of God. Expand on its significance or delete, this isn't a directory of churches. Pilatus 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-notable. Anyway, the text is taken from the church web site [12] thus making this article a potential copyvio. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this Wikipedia thing. I guess I should have read more about the process and rules. I thought I knew enough to start. I am trying to chronicle a new phenmenon in Christianity that has no leader ang goes by or has different names: 'the post modern movement', 'emergent church', 'organic church' and the list goes on. Some of these names are dubbed on them from within and some from without. This movement is something that I saw that was not represented in the Wikipedia database of knowledge. In a movement with no leaders or unified body, made up of individual expressions,the individual expressions are part of the informational structure of the movement. Example: like when covering the Association of Vineyard Churches individual people, like John Wimber and Lonnie Frisbee are mentioned, and individual churches are mentioned like Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. I guess I started with the individual pages first and not the movement pages first. I guess I did it ass backwards - J. D. Hunt

p.s. I apoligize I couldn't find stuff on emergent church, I guess because I was using caps E vs e in looking for emergent, but other catigories i've tried come up nil'.

p.s. This info that I submitted is not copyrighted; it is taken off of a public disclosure page - J. D. Hunt

Someone mentioned signing up, I initially wasn't sure what that was about. I will sign up. I am not affiliated with any of these groups other than an aquaintence. I thought the Richmond, VA aspect of the emergent church, as well as, other regions in the U.S. needed to be chronicled, as they are all unique facets of the whole movement. - J. D. Hunt

  • Delete, nn local church. MCB 01:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete, advertisement --Isolani 17:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an advertisement, because I'm not a member there, I don't work for them, I'm not hired by them and I don't actually know any of them personally or on any level. (J. D. Hunt 07:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • delete advertisement for a nn local church. Pete.Hurd 19:53, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crondor[edit]

Neologism; I couldn't find any uses in the first few pages of google results. Thue | talk 17:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Thue. Even if there was evidence that this word is used as the article claims, the article would still be just a dicdef. --Metropolitan90 17:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neo-dictdef. Karol 17:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stu 20:02, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crunksquad[edit]

Seemingly NN Rap group from Atlanta. Only 124 Google hits, and none once you include a member's Created 10 days ago, only edit is a request for Wikification and a Request for a category. jfg284 20:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination.
  • Delete per nom. Devotchka 20:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't make WP:MUSIC so it should crunk off. Budgiekiller 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi my name is Coogi and I live in the Eastside area of Atlanta. Crunksquad is a real and if i might add a well known group in the streets. Honestly, i was shocked to see them mentioned on the internet, but thanks to wikipedia others across the world can hear about them.


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Crystal Clear...revisited[edit]

Non-notable. Google returns 7 results on a search, 4 of these being Wikipedia or mirrors, the others being CrystalCherry's site og blog. Bjelleklang - talk 18:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Absolutely. This should be deleted as soon as the "CrystalCherry" entry is.Vulturell 19:04, 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 Darn-You-Rednecks Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darn-You-Rednecks Island[edit]

No google results. --Ixfd64 04:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally bogus. No google hits (checked to make it offial but this Texan knew that anyway.--Dakota 04:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above reasons. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By article's own words, "unoficially named Damn-You-Rednecks Island by Colin Carpenter and Huey Fischer on May 28, 2005", nonsense. ERcheck 05:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Yes, please, delete fast and delete hard. -- Captain Disdain 07:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE make it go away... Stu 20:12, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Tompkins[edit]

vanity page/non-notable, I vote Delete Deyyaz 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing more than a résumé. ♠DanMS 01:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Resume, NN, vanity. Devotchka 02:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not badly written, but does not claim notability. -Colin Kimbrell 03:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We could always userfy, I suppose, if he'd like to register an account. -Colin Kimbrell 03:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he spent more effort reworking his website, he wouldnt have to post his resume on wikipedia. nn, vanity. Bwithh 03:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. *drew 10:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well written, but nethertheless nn.  Ian13  18:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. PJM 23:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of an individual's existence makes him notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 00:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nn-bio, CSD:A7. Nothing resembling an assertion of notablity in this article. It's just a resume with nn job stuff. MCB 00:46, 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 Keep & Rename by unambiguous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DIEGO LEON MONTOYA SANCHEZ[edit]

Wikipedia does not serve as a crime bulletin. -- Spring Rubber 09:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but Cleanup and move to a properly capitalized title. When I put it up for AfD, I didn't realize that this person was on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List. --Spring Rubber 19:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m glad you brought it to AFD. Otherwise I never would have seen it and had a chance to clean it up a little. Of course that’s not the purpose of AFD, but it worked out well. ♠DanMS 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, encyclopedias don't post wanted ads. What next, a missing kitten? — JIP | Talk 11:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Keep and clean-up. Devotchka 16:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and fix the page title. This person is listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives page in Wikipedia. Of the ten persons on that page, six have individual pages in their own name. ♠DanMS 16:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I wikified this page somewhat but it still appears to be a direct lift from the wanted poster. If this survives AFD, it needs more info and needs to be moved to a page with the title not in all capitals. ♠DanMS 17:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DanMS and rename. Karol 17:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DanMS. Thelb4 19:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's important enough (his crimes were bad enough) to get him on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, he is important enough to get into Wikipedia. Adam (http://www.ifobos.com) 22:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Request. To any admin: I already voted, but can we Speedy Keep this, especially considering the original nominator has changed his vote? As soon as it is kept, I will move it to Diego Leon Montoya Sanchez (if someone doesn’t beat me to it). ♠DanMS 02:27, 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 Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dugar[edit]

original research/opinion AppleMacD 20:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. should be speedy delete. Anonymous contributor deleted earlier db tag. As per nomination. ERcheck 20:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • not a speedy. but delete as OR unless sources cited. DES (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can't find anything on Google after trying a few relevant phrases, etc. Devotchka 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: creator deleted afd tag and put a redirect to a new page with the same information. Suggest anonymous poster be sanctioned. And new redirect page be deleted as well. ERcheck 23:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless listcruft. MCB 01:35, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Couzens-Lake[edit]

The subject does not appear to be particularly notable in his field (judging by a google search) and this looks like an advert. Leithp 18:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nn bio. chowells 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - nn bio but please put new AFD nominations at the bottom of the page. Thelb4 21:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duly noted, I'd forgotten the format. Last time I listed an article it was still called VFD. Leithp 22:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn bio. PJM 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of an individual's existence makes him notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (6d, 3Om, 1m) . - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Week[edit]

Content duplicates Engineering Week - University of Alberta

  • Delete Dlyons493 Talk 03:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. Delete Engineering Week - University of Alberta. Delete Engineering Students' Society - University of Alberta. None of these merit their own articles. None. Bearcat 05:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge, as I voted on the engineering students' society (is this the same one? i can't remember anymore...) If this *is* notable, put a blurb in the UofA's page, but certainly, it does not deserve its own page.Janet13 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that in cases of duplicated content, editors should usually just redirect and not bother with AfD (and if the page should be deleted rather than redirected that should be justified; in this case Engineering Week is a pretty bad title, since it could refer to several other things — perhaps a real disambiguation page could be created here). If the article itself should be delected, redirect to the preferred title, and list that page for deletion. btm 09:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "dash" articles, with no redirects as they are unlikely search terms. Merge and redirect "Engineering Week" to the University of Alberta article, where a paragraph on it can be made. If and when there is another "Engineering Week", it be changed into a disambiguation page. -- Kjkolb 17:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with University of Alberta. Not sure about a redirect - Google tells me the UofA is not the only uni to have an engineering week. Denni☯ 03:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. --maclean25 11:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alternatively (though not preferred), merge this into University of Alberta, or create University of Alberta student groups (or similar) and list/expand. E Pluribus Anthony 10:26, 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 Keep by unambiguous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gag Factor[edit]

Non notable, troll material HittiteKing 21:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unpleasant material, but the pornographic series in question has won several AVN Awards (sample), and as such is notable within the field. -Colin Kimbrell 03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and in fact has won only two AVN awards, for Best Oral-Themed Series in 2003 and 2004. I would like to hope that it remains non-notable for its particularly offensive manner of treating women. Denni☯ 05:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems like an odd line of reasoning to me. Would you also vote to delete Fargo (movie) because it "won only two" Oscars? -Colin Kimbrell 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two is not several, and an AVN award is not an Oscar. Denni☯ 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which award, then, is the equivalent of the Oscar for pornographic films? -Colin Kimbrell 04:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In order for it to be equivalent to an Oscar, it would have to have the prestige an Oscar has, the viewing audience an Oscar has, and the international recognition an Oscar has. My guess is that not one in a thousand people would know what the "AVN Award" is (and does it even have a name?) whereas if you say "the Oscar", nobody asks "Oscar who?" Sorry, the best you can do here is "analogous to the Oscar". There is no equivalent award. Denni☯ 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As it is the preeminent award for the field, then, winners of that award are notable within that field, and worthy of an article (assuming that the field itself is sufficiently notable, of course). If pornography isn't notable, though, we've got a lot of deleting ahead of us. -Colin Kimbrell 15:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel though the show can be seen as degrading to women, the women in the films know what is going to happen when they sign up for the show and can say no at any time. It is a fetish for some men and some women and this may be an interest to those who it isnt a fetish of as you'd find that a lot of people havent even thought of the concept and would find it quite bizarre. This article could act as warning not to watch the series to those who would find it offensive and either way it is unlikely those who were not looking for this article would stumble upon it.-john (Unsigned edit by 81.139.49.250)

Keep Denni notes that the site is offensive. So Wikipedia is censoring offensive material? Not everything in life is pleasant, but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. Soon it will turn into something people don't trust if things are deleted because they might offend someone. I can understand deleting offensive pictures, but if we are turning into censors, people will not trust the unfetterd flow of information that Wikipedia is famous for. (Unsigned edit by 67.185.234.168)

Comment Please don't remove the AFD tag from the article while debate is ongoing. If you want to keep the article, that's the wrong way to go about it. -Colin Kimbrell 15:28, 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 Userfied by Friday. --GraemeL (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspers, Jan and Gaspers[edit]

I'm getting a couple of warning bells. First of all, the article is created by Jan Gaspers, which get the old vanity alarm going. Secondly, the article is exceedingly vague; if the guy really was a significant scholar, you'd think it'd name some publications, or some academic background, or anything. Thirdly, the Google search for "Jan Gaspers" european integration gets only two hits, which do appear to be relevant but don't seem to establish notability -- if he really was a "well-known scholar who has written ground breaking contributions to European integration theory", you'd think that his name in conjuction with the area he's made ground-breaking contributions to would get a little more hits, peer reviews and whatnot. I can't say that I'm familiar with the field, so I may be wrong; if so, I'm sure the votes will reflect that. -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably add that apparently he made a copy of the article at Gaspers, which has been nominated for speedy deletion by someone else. Personally, I'd prefer to see if someone can show notability first and at least get a bit of consensus going, since this goes a little beyond the normal "best warcraft player in the world" or "very best guitarist" stuff that usually gets dumped under {{nn-bio}}. -- Captain Disdain 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 00:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. --InShaneee 00:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 01:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity unless someone can prove that he's more notable than this article would suggest. Devotchka 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've userfied this for now, as it does certainly appear to be an autobiography. I left a user a note on their talk page explaining the move. Friday (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geigh[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary. Kappa 03:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this frankly ridiculous attempt at using the word "gay" as a derogatory statement and pretending that this way it's not one. I'm sorry, what? Is that kind of like referring to, I dunno, "nheegghar" when calling someone names and claiming it's not racist because, hey, it's "nheegghar!" It makes my brain hurt. More importantly, it's a non-notable neologism. -- Captain Disdain 06:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and WP:NOT a dictionary. Besides, everyone knows that the correct spelling is "ghey." :oP Jacqui ★ 07:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...you're not helping. =) -- Captain Disdain 07:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that didn't come off the way I meant it on the Internet. I didn't mean to sound like I approved of its use, I was just rather bitterly acknowledging that I hear it a lot. Jacqui★ 21:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm sorry, my comment didn't come off the way I meant it. I certainly didn't think you were being serious about it being an acceptable term. -- Captain Disdain 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 11:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thelb4 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neologism, not in wide use. MCB 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete neologism, and misspelled to boot. Youngamerican 15:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General (fiction) (Renamed as List of Fictional Generals)[edit]

Unmaintainable list. I can think of hundreds of works in which fictional characters with the rank of General appear, and in soem of them there are many such charcters. If the list were to be anything like compelte it would be huge, and if not it would be seriously misleading or PoV. Why not Postman (fiction) while we are about it? This is really just a "random collection of information" there is no particular theme or fact linking these fictional charcters, and no selective principle to reduce the thousands of entries at least as qualified as the one currently in this list. Delete. DES (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: As the creator of the article, I wasnt thinking long term. Who knows where it can go. Its not POV and could contain some interesting info and links. -Husnock 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If, however, the list focused on fictional MILITARY individuals (generals, captains, sergeants, etc) then I'd go for it. As it is, it seems bizarrely specific. I don't want to end up with fifty different articles describing the fictional characters of fifty different military rankings. Devotchka 02:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be the size of List of fictional military characters? If it wern't inclusive, what would be the criteria? Maybe if you limit it to such characters that alrady have separate articels on wikipedia, or perhaps that are mentioned in articels about the fictional works in which they appear. Otherwise, will we include for example every sailor named in the Horatio Hornblower books and the Aubrey-Maturin series? Every character in the works of David Drake? and so on? DES (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. But I don't really care either way; it's not an article I'd be interested in writing. I was just suggesting it to him. Devotchka 02:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyway, once you limit the entries to WP articles, it would be better as a category. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Title is misleading - should be something like List of fictional Generals. Maybe state inclusion criteria? Should there be categories for fictional characters - we do have them for real people! Dlyons493 Talk 02:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "List of >whatever<" articles are rarely useful; this one doesn't appear to be an exception. Friday (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Friday Bwithh 03:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists like this are seldom useful, and I don't think this one is an exception. -- Captain Disdain 06:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into General, no redirect. Important fictional postmen should be mentioned in Mail carrier, etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPER STRONG KEEP. We have tons of lists like Fictional Presidents, and Generals are incredibly important people as well. Much LOWER than General and I'd vote delete, but fictional generals deserve a list if any sub-group of fictional characters do. Staxringold 21:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad a scope, does not appear to serve any useful purpose. --InShaneee 23:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as general listcruft. MCB 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE AS OF 1 NOV 05: 7 Delete, 2 Keeps, 1 Merge, 1 Comment

With the recent name change, I feel that such a list can be maintained on Wikipedia to provide good links and info about characters in books and films. While the majority of the votes are above are to delete, I feel the article still holds merit, espeically as a list, and that the list article is a good compromomise to the original concept which was an all encompassing article about fictional uses of the rank of General. -Husnock 03:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 10:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global Resource Bank[edit]

Seems like a project of one guy, John Pozzi, who even uses Wikipedia as only reference on his website grb.net. The entry suggests it was seriously considered by the UN, which it was not. Therefore: delete. DocendoDiscimus 19:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I like that he uses his own article as reference. Nice try. Devotchka 19:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete interesting mix of original research/vanity/ & copious name-dropping to cover inherent non-notable nature of subject. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirected to Grimm's Law. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grim's Law[edit]

Delete This article has no content-- it is obviously a misspelling of Grimm's law that is very rare, and I doubt this page has been hit since I stupidly started writing it a year and a halfago with no idea what the heck I was talking about. Delete, yo.

I concur. Ditch it.

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

The result of the debate was merge into Minnesota State Highway 100 - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 100[edit]

To many dead links, and ambigious information

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homestar Runner Wiki[edit]

It has been asserted that this wiki should not have its own page. A draft new version of the article is waiting here: User:Kookykman/HRWiki article in progress, but before it is moved, I think the issue of whether the wiki should have a page or not be settled. No opinion either way myself. Rd232 talk 12:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and forget about pre-emptive article deletion! Hr-wiki is the second Google result for "homestar runner," out of over a million results. [13] Notable, large and organized wiki. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 13:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a strange nomination. Well, anyway, delete and mention asa one-liner in the HSR article. This has zero influence outside of its readers, and is not a separate topic from Homestar Runner itself. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Homestar runner, as suggested. Since there's no content, I'd probably have just redirected this instead of sending it to Afd. Maybe the "proposed" version should be put in while the Afd is running? Friday (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Homestar Runner (and agree with the last sentence of A Man in Black's nomination). Not every wiki needs to have an entry in Wikipedia. The content of the Homestar Runner Wiki should be adequately explained in that wiki itself, not here. Since the HR Wiki is already referenced in the Homestar Runner article, I don't know what actually needs to be merged there. (Please note that I would rather see a delete or merge of this article rather than a "keep for lack of consensus".) --Metropolitan90 17:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I have pointed out in the original discussion this is a big wiki relative to the Homestar Runner universe. The original discussion also includes 2 votes against keeping, and 5 votes for (one of which is mine, 2 of which are intertwined in the discussion against, but I did not think it be appropriate to move to the for section. There were also users in that contributed to making the article that did not vote for one reason or another. It seemed to me that some consensus had already been reached. --Stux 18:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the other Wikis mentioned in the original discussion can have articles, so can this one. Smileyface11945
  • Keep. This wiki is notable enough. Plus, how can you delete something that hasn't even been created yet? This hasn't recieved the time it needs to become a full article. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Second on Google. Come on! E.L. Cool 18:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? The entire content and potential content of this article could be replace with an external link that says, "[linkgoeshere Homestar Runner Wiki] is a wiki with character info, commentary, and annotation of the Homestar Runner cartoons and related works." It's not a separate subject from Homestar Runner itself. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Homestar Runner (or, failing that, delete) per Metropolitan90. No matter how high its results are, it's still essentially a subsection of the Homestar Runner universe itself, and that page is not quite big enough to start spinning sections of it off into their own article. --Aquillion 18:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge, definitely in that order of preference. This thing is definitely one of the most notable H*R sites, rather lively, has tons of contributors, and has, in my opinion, been one of the good examples on how to use wikis to do something relevant too. I'm kind of yes-no-maybe-dunno torn on whether or not the thing should have its own article, though, but I'm kind of more in favor of keeping it as an article. It can be summarized as a few paragraphs, but would that really be enough? If the Consensus says "merge with Homestar Runner", and the resulting section grows too much over the time, then definitely keep the article and stick it right there on its own article. Or you could save time and just move the temp article there and let it grow. But in any case, keep the redirect and history. --Wwwwolf 19:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment. Isn't there some policy against deleting a page before it even exists? - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to Homestar Runner. Note however that this article was already merged and redirected the last time it came up for deletion. -- TomPreuss 21:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but back then it was just a stub. --Stux 22:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is no article here yet. This is part of the Homestar Runner universe Jessamyn 22:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have moved the draft from User:Kookykman/HRWiki article in progress to the article space, per the request at WP:RM, on October 22. As this draft page was already mentioned in the nomination, I'd suggest that the closing admin of this vote should count all previous votes as though they were cast for/against this new version of the page. Eugene van der Pijll 23:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't count previous votes. No, we shouldn't count all the above votes. There are some there that seem to only mention the previous article, not the draft version. - Kookykman (talk • contribs)
  • Merge I think that most of it is pretty much filler content that can easily be moved to Homestar Runner. On another note, is it just me or are just the users from HRWiki voting to keep it? Rogue Leader 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • that is my feeling too. Is it possible to vote Strong Merge? Jessamyn 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's not entirely true, I see names here I have never seen in the HRWiki. Besides, what is wrong with letting HRWikians have their own little space on the big Wiki (aside from HR page itself) to show off the wiki they are proud of working on! Please remember also, the other commenters have noted that this wiki has many pages on far less significant sites, wiki or otherwise. --Stux 20:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let me rephrase. A vast majority of HRWiki users are voting for its keeping. Rogue Leader 23:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if we must, Delete if we can. An external link in the Homestar Runner article will suffice. flowersofnight 15:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and don't merge. This is a very well known wiki with an Alexa rank of under 50,000 which is high for a wiki on such a specific topic. We've got articles on far less significant sites. Angela. 19:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angela --JAranda | watz sup 23:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Purplefeltangel and Smileyface11945.—thegreentrilby 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the goal of Wikipedia? To provide info about stuff! Keep it in case anyone is wondering about it! --daunrealist 04:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile omish[edit]

  • Keep, but expand/cleanup. Where's the nom's blurb.
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, unless someone can show notability. I get a good bunch (3500+) of Google hits for them, but they don't seem to actually establish that the group is significant. -- Captain Disdain 06:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's not enough available on them to make a decent stub. About the only thing that can be verified is that they are a comedic punk band and they play distorted guitar. A stub should at least lay down the basics. --Foofy 13:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no vote recorded - to be relisted. - Mailer Diablo 17:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House Of Maqbool[edit]

Not notable. A google search on "Tahir Sohail" "Shahid Maqbool" does not provide any results, does not pass WP:BIO in my opinion, and not sure if this can be verified.
Note: It is possible that this is part of an attenpt to interlink and provide credibility for United Detergents and Shahid Maqbool.
Bjelleklang - talk 21:56, 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 You Lose. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Win[edit]

In addition to appearing thrown together, the content seems inappropriate for Wikipedia and might even qualify for Speedy Deletion under "no meaningful content." Avery W. Krouse 06:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Speedy if possible.--Dakota 06:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this "game". -- Captain Disdain 07:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable game. — JIP | Talk 11:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn local "game" at best; hoax or unencyclopedic nonsense at worst. MCB 01:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shawn 13:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Also note attack comment on article's talk page. -Colin Kimbrell 19:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to IWin.com, which was a notable search engine/contest site before the dot-com bubble bursting. Youngamerican 15:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ImageMixer[edit]

Belongs in software directory, not encyclopedia BeteNoir 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 10:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have plenty of articles on software. 422,000 Google hits - someone seems to care about it - David Gerard 13:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable software program and article is in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 17:14, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jagon[edit]

In a best case scenario, I'd say merge this with a list of neologisms in South Park, but that doesn't exist and this article isn't enough in itself to create one. Delete Karmafist 01:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete this jagon, although it looks like gaining popularity in blogs and indeed sounds really good. mikka (t) 04:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, the term has become quite popular across the eastern US and has really taken on a life of its own. The explosive growth in the use of the term over such a short period of time provides for some interesting discussion on the evolution of the English language. Perhaps a "linguistics" section is in order?
  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 06:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TECannon 18:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mikka. --eleuthero 01:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mikka. Ejrrjs | What? 01:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at first I thought Jargon was being nominated and I was very confused, but this makes alot more sense. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete problematic article. Any real info on the subject belongs at South Park. --Fire Star 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete par excellence 69.141.234.4 03:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • user has under 50 edits, over 20 on the article in question. Karmafist 15:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. I can't even convince myself that this neologism should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 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) 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kabouter Plop[edit]

Band with no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. Webpage given has little content. Many google hits, apparently because it's a phrase in dutch rather than referncing the band. -- SCZenz 02:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless I'm wrong about the google hits; in that case, my apologies. -- SCZenz 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I withdraw my nomination after rewrite by Radiant. -- SCZenz 01:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. This is not really a band, it's a famous television series in the Netherlands, of which a movie was made (second movie in the works iirc) and a really annoying song that nevertheless made the top-40 charts. Radiant_>|< 10:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettably, Keep per Radiant. In fact, we should also have an article about Studio 100. They have a shrewdly commercial approach to young children. Compare K3 and Samson en Gert. squell 20:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough. -- Foofy 14:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under A7, a biography that does not assert significance. Friday (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Andersen[edit]

17 year-old whose claim to fame is being the offspring of a famous (?) person BrainyBroad 04:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing notable. ERcheck 04:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That claim just isn't enough. -- Captain Disdain 07:00, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ko-do Ryu Karate[edit]

Was tagged for cleaning, I did my best, there aren't many "facts" about this group other than what they post on their own website. After reading Wikipedia:Importance I tried to dig up some third-party goods on the group, but came up with nothing, though I did find some articles about methods they mentioned. I don't think there is enough here to make this site/group notable. I vote delete. Foofy 12:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable organization. --InShaneee 23:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable through third party sources. Saberwyn 01:36, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krisztián Sárneczky[edit]

Non-notable amateur (i.e. student) astronomer with no English Google hits outside of his/her school. BrainyBroad 04:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. —Wayward Talk 12:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this could have been speedy-deleted as not providing an assertion of notability. CDC (talk) 18:49, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lerner-LaRouche debate[edit]

The topic of this article is a debate on economics that occured 34 years ago. It has no sources, and no assertion of notability. Previous ArbCom decision holds that LaRouche sources are not reliable (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) and no other sources for this are available. Willmcw 01:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this before the LaRouchie Sockpuppets get here. Karmafist 01:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first page of results on this page are from Lyndon LaRouche affiliated pages so WP:V is a real problem with this article. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with above; the article is also probably a copy vio of this page:http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3110abba_lerner.html --FRS 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an event happened, it is notable enough for inclusion. As long as it can be shown that it did indeed happen--which can be easily done by, for instance, inquiring of Queens College--then it should stay; the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article. And I don't see how it can be considered a copyvio. Kurt Weber 00:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't usually argue with votes, but this seems very odd. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is not notable. Establishing that the event occurred by contacting the university would only reference about one sentence in the article, leaving 99% still-unsourced. It could be a copyvio because it is a slight re-wording of a copyrighted article. -Willmcw 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, the problem is that your premise is false. Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is indeed notable. As for verifiability, see my earlier entry. As I said, "the same criterion applies to the individual details within the article". If this means leaving just a stub, so be it--a stub is better than nothing at all. And I fail to see how it is a "slight re-wording"...it contains the same facts, but it's hardly a re-wording of the particular presentation of the facts that FRS linked to. Kurt Weber 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every event that ever happened in the history of the world is indeed notable. Congratulations, you have just managed to completely drain the meaning out of the word "notable". --Calton | Talk 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if non-LaRouche sources can be found. Rangerdude 04:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rangerdude, does that mean you will vote Delete if the sources can't be found? One sentence articles often fall under WP:CSD, so the non-LaRouche sources would have to include more than "it happened". Karmafist 16:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll support deletion if a source cannot be found. If a source showing to the effect of "it happened" can be found, then I support marking it as a stub and developing it with additional non-LaRouche sources as they are found. Rangerdude 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The debate discussed in this article seems to have no significance other than as an apparent point of emphasis in the biography of one of the people who participated in it (Lyndon LaRouche). So, accordingly, mention of the debate belongs in the article about that person, if in fact there are any credible sources that may be used to describe it. Aratuk 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A mention, yes. But the debate itself deserves its own article. Kurt Weber 22:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any or all mention is what I intend. The debate has importance only insofar as the life of Lyndon LaRouche, simply because there is no evidence of interest in it external to its association with him. Aratuk 16:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LaRouche-cruft, with obvious verifiability problems. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to say without knowing whether it actually happened. If it did, it's notable as one of the few sensible things LaRouche has said (and should be merged). Gazpacho 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not important outside of LaRouche circles. The debate doesn't seem to have had any impact other than being a "win" for LaRouche by connecting a policy to Hitler.--Bkwillwm 00:48, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generation Yers[edit]

Basically, a list of anybody and everybody born after 1976. Also doesn't jibe with the Generation Y article, which says somebody born in the late 80s or later. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus listed in the Generation Y article as to what is Generation Y. There is no established consensus as of yet in culture as to what is Generation Y. 1977 is the earliest year counted as Generation Y, and therefore it is prudent to include it in such a listing.

  • Delete, we have categories for people born this and that year. Punkmorten 19:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better, and more completly covered in the catagory listing. As this article is now, simply listcruft. Stu 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless listcruft. MCB 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteJust a list of people born after 1976 which could incle a big chunk of the palnet.--Dakota 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't make an accurate list on this topic until all of the media pundits agree on who a Gen-Yer is. And if the Gen Y article asserts specific criteria, that's pretty misleading. I have heard so many different definitions on Gen Y just on CNN alone! Jacqui ★ 15:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lack of concensus doesn't change the fact that these people were born in these years, and it is convenient to have them listed together as such. Also, it's a shame that nattering nabobs want to go around scorching the work of others. Ryoung122 07:55, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look Up[edit]

Supposedly a soon to be released film starring a few well known stars (Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku & Tom Welling no less) yet has no mention on IMDB or google search. Given reference is http://www.insomniacmania.com/index_default.php?id=387626 but that site is similar to Wiki in that anyone can create a database entry and populate with any information they like. Created and exclusively edited by an anon user. The anon IP can be traced to a relationship with the anon editors of another AFD: The_Ultimate_Team. PTSE 04:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - PTSE 04:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Supposedly a TV movie to debut on the SciFi channel but no verifiable material. Capitalistroadster 04:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Pamri • Talk 04:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom; unverified crystalballery. MCB 01:04, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Low resistant tires[edit]

Article title not descriptive Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. I don't believe this title is ever likely to be used to access the article. I think that the 'real' title for such an article would be 'Low rolling resistance tire'; this may have been what the author was intending. The current article is also a sub-stub/dictionary definition. All info there and much more available in Rolling friction. - Catbar (Brian Rock) 23:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom, poorly titled sub-stub. Pete.Hurd 18:54, 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 no consensus (4m, 4k) - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max 4: Fury Road[edit]

Reluctantly, I have to list this here as there seems to be nothing but crystal balling going on here, with some vague and unsourced comment, a link to the IMDb page (which means nothing) and language that suggests this film may never actually be made. Too much speculation. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if someone can revise this with proof that the film is actually going to be made. In response to the vote by David Gerard, I also support merging with Mad Max should the vote go that way. 23skidoo 07:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge (though there's not much information) and redirect to Mad Max - it's useful there, but WP:NOT a crystal ball as you say. I say the redirect to discourage its recreation - David Gerard 13:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mad Max as per David Gerard as in put a couple of sentences and create a redirect. By the looks of things, it certainly won't have Mel Gibson in it. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per David Gerard above. - Cnwb 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot see the harm in keeping this, even if it is a stub. The other three films have their own articles. If it takes off then the start of an article is here. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That speculation can all be sourced. A quick googling for the movie reveals interviews with mel gibson, george miller (the writer/director?) and other people working on it. The production of has been delayed several times, but it's still being worked on. They have released information on some of the actors who would be in it: " Australian actress Georgie Shew is indeed in talks for a role in the forthcoming Mel Gibson headed blockbuster." [14] " Also included is a brief Q&A with George Miller on the TV series, his movies, and Mad Max 4." [15] "The last thing I wanted to do is another Mad Max, but this came along..." [16]. Nathan J. Yoder 06:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If all the above come from recent sources then it needs to be added to the article because the article gives the impression it's about a dead project -- or one that might be revived at some unknown time in the future (i.e. Star Trek 11). If it is indeed a going concern then this must be indicated by verifiable sources. 23skidoo 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above interview with George Miller appears to be copied from a July 2005 edition of Australia's Empire magazine. Nathan J. Yoder 13:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Snottygobble | Talk 01:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no reason to delete it. So what if it doesn't cite sources? Many articles don't. Google it to see for yourself if it is legit.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matronsapron[edit]

A garage band from Bromsgrove with a website. Pilatus 04:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't see how being a garage band warrants deletion - see The Hives, The White Stripes, etc. Secondly, I don't see how being from Bromsgrove warrants deletion - See Bromsgrove, Alfred Edward Housman, Richard Neville, Michael Ball And thirdly, I don't see how having a website warrants deletion - see Wikipedia, Google, or any number of bands listed on here. I'm sorry, I can't sign my name because I'm not a member of this website - But I look forward to reading your reply, and to why you think this band shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia's so-called definitive coverage of bands and musicians past and presence, whilst such nonentities as Behead The Prophet, No Lord Shall Live are allowed to live on unhindered. Thankyou.

  • Delete. You've misunderstood. The fact that you're a garage band, from Bromsgrove, and have a website has nothing to do with your nomination. He was just mentioning those things as a summary of the article. I hope your band does well and can post on here eventually, but MatronsApron does not appear to fulfill WP:MUSIC yet and is therefore NN. Devotchka 16:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a comment for other voters--they've been on MTV2 once. Does that qualify as "major music media"? Devotchka 16:27, 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 as an A7. Employees of significant organizations are not automatically significant themselves. Friday (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Zimmerman[edit]

An attorney with no claim to fame other than he's employed. BrainyBroad 05:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Job title not notable. ERcheck 05:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was kinda hoping that being one of the EFF guys, he would've done something notable, but his bio kinda makes it clear that he's just a lawyer, as far as I can tell. -- Captain Disdain 07:05, 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 Closing this early result is clear --JAranda | watz sup 22:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Beach High School[edit]

I dont think a school should be in a encyclopedia --64.12.116.74 17:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This school is more notable than 99 percent of schools here. I go to this school and I admit it sucks but still too notable --JAranda | watz sup 17:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The general rule is that schools are notable. Devotchka 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read the article and learned something of interest. "Chad Johnson, (born 1978), American football player, wide receiver for the Cincinnati Bengals", went to this high school. I'm a huge Chad Johnson fan!--FloNight 18:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The overall balance of the article, links and sources all look good. The artcile isn't a vanity page for a student or other nonsense. Stu 19:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:schools/Arguments#Keep. Nominator please remember to put "AFD" or something like that in your edit summary when you add the tag. Kappa 20:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep unless someone can explain how and why an anonymous user can nominator a high school for deletion when there is no consensus whatsoever to delete high school articles. Silensor 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily. --rob 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kurt Weber 00:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is part of a Series of High School articles attached to Miami-Dade County Public Schools PRueda29 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article appears to establish a reason for it's existance through notable alumni.Gateman1997 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like a notable high school with a fair list of notable alumns as well. Yamaguchi先生 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools. -- DS1953 talk 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep education institution. --Vsion 05:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not one to think that most schools are notable, but there is a clear consensus that they are, if verifiable. Youngamerican 15:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have other high school articles. Carioca 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and can we please close this discussion we all agree here Yuckfoo 19:54, 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 per A2. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Taghi Behjat Foumani[edit]

Farsi. Has been on WP:PNT since 16 October. Physchim62 09:37, 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.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mondonation[edit]

Advertising. See also Affirmation based marketing. How is Esperanto planned?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tomf688. --Celestianpower háblame 10:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaimanalan[edit]

Should be in User: name space. Chemturion 22:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedy. The original article was two sentences: “Architecture student from anna university. Nothing special about him, he just wanted to create a log in wikipedia and finally succeeded.” Chemturion nominated it for speedy but the author removed the DB tag and filled in all the rest of the paragraphs. ♠DanMS 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy per WP:DVAIN: “An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance...” ♠DanMS 04:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Removed from Afd and discussion of notability and sources moved to talk page. As nominator, I see that it may well be significant, per discussion below. Nobody suggested deleted, so I'm ending the Afd early. Friday (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MyDD[edit]

The article says that "MyDD shot to fame during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election by being the first major news source to break the exit polls..." but I see no verification that this is true. Are they a "major news source"?! Delete as an unverifiable and/or insignificant blog. Friday (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bowers, which is also up for deletion. btm 09:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A popular left wing blog in the Top 40 according to the Truthlaidbear ecotraffic indicator see [17]. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has published on the page see [18]. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could be convinced otherwise, but the Sentator's use of it is not convincing to me. Is the store where he buys his groceries going to have an article next? It's possible that it's noteworthy for traffic, though. Third-party sources talking of it's importance would go far in convincing me. Friday (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are 11 Google News Hits references to MyDD including reports in several Ohio newspapers to their influence in the Ohio Democratic primary between Paul Hackett and Sherrod Brown see Google News results [19].

Mother Jones writes of the inflence of Liberal blogs such as MyDD in Hackett's rise to prominence. [20] Feingold's article is a testament to the growing influence of blogs such as MyDD in American politics. Capitalistroadster 16:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It surprises me that an influential blog would have so little content in its article, but it sounds like it might be significant, per the above comments. It would be nice if the article contained verifiable info, though. Friday (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand notable political blog, esp in last US election cycle. 4-5 unique hits in a current Google News search. Jessamyn 22:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete per CSD G4 Karmafist 16:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neanderthal theory of autism[edit]

Previously AfD'd, see

The gist of previous AfDs seems to be that it is original research. The current version may be somewhat rewritten from earlier versions by the same author.

-- Curps 04:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deletion, since this one has already been deleted three times. If that was not the right decision (and I see that it was by no means a swiftly reached or full consensus, so there's probably room for argument there), the proper way to deal with that is bringing that up at Deletion review, not by recreating the article repeatedly again under a slightly different name in the hopes that no one notices. -- Captain Disdain 06:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment deletion review sounds like a good idea - the current version of the article does have better sources, but there are large falsifiability issues. Dlyons493 Talk 09:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs to be debted. It is fair to advance deletion till we reach a consensus on the present form, which is different from the ones before. Prashanthns 11:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author asserts that the theory is "very popular in the autistic community" and then jumps into original research. 65 hits on Google Scholar, none of them really pertinent. Unless the author proves that the theory has a signifigant number of followers, delete. Pilatus 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research it was, and original research it continues to be. Anville 16:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Karol 17:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course; may be speedyable due to continued recreation. However, I note that the article is moving towards a discussion of genetic evidence Neanderthal-human interbreeding, which is a much more scientific topic (right now). If the author wanted to write an article on Evidence for human-Neanderthal interbreeding, and if that article contained a sentence that said, "the idea that such interbreeding is responsible for autism has some support within the autistic community, although no scientific research yet suggests that this is the case.", then I would consider that a reasonable nod to the "theory" that would be appropriate to WP. Until such time as the "theory" has any smidgeon of scientific support, however, it does not deserve its own article. Bikeable 19:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. I agree with Bikeable (above). The article could be moved to another wiki. --JWSchmidt 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but this appears to be a treasur that someone just can't live without on Wikipedia. Even if one drives the silver spike of death into it, its sure to resurface again. Stu 20:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still not only think that it's original research, but that no other minority group would stand for being spoken of in the same way. However, this time around that's all I will say. Jacqui ★ 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. The current article provides four citations to support it: however, the two that are from reputable sources are irrelevant (they concern only the possibility of human-Neanderthal interbreeding, with no reference to autism in any way), and the two that discuss autism are both apparently unpublished original research on personal websites. WP:NOT a soapbox. The authors are welcome to come back when they have some evidence that this theory has any acceptance in any circles whatsoever. — Haeleth Talk 23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as re-creation. It is technically re-written, but is substantially the same description of the same theory by (one assumes) the same user or someone in collaboration with him/her, and unquestionably meets the spirit of CSD:G4. MCB 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm voting delete too, but to be fair I think I should point out that this is not the same user (I checked) and that this version of the page at least includes a "controversy" section, which the others did not, if I remember correctly. Jacqui ★ 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The mere fact of a theory's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. It is clear that someone somewhere has come up with this theory (otherwise there wouldn't have been an article written in the first place) and thus, regardless of whether the theory itself is valid or not, it does exist. Kurt Weber 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? So if I come up with a theory -- for example, right now, my theory is that people don't always think the full implications of their statement through before making them, which I hereby dub the Theory of People Going Off Half-Cocked -- that means it's notable enough for inclusion? So if I were to actually create the article (or, for the sake of argument, got someone else to do it for me), that would automatically make it notable and a valid addition to Wikipedia, simply because someone thought it up and took the ten minutes to write it down? I must disagree. -- Captain Disdain 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering how manyh "articles" get written every day around here that are deemed personal essays or original research, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The precise reason why those policies exist is so that we don't waste valuable space discussing a view held by one person or a very small group of people. Jacqui ★ 15:22, 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 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NIASOM[edit]

after first sentence, apparent commercial/advertising content for management school ERcheck 23:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nomination. Creator deleted earlier speedy delete. ERcheck
  • Delete. Per nomination. --Ezeu 23:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of policy issues are addressed during last edit. The readers may find some unique features which the world is entitled to know. Wikipedia can certainly not provide any benefit as an advertisement media by any heuristics. If delete you must do so - the author has the sense of attachable detachment. Author KCM

  • Recent edits have not served to make article notable. "unique features withc the world is entitled to know..." and "...not provide any benefit as an advertisement" seem to be in conflict. (Author KCM of above note is article creator.) Reinforces nomination. Still voting to delete.

It does not contradict - of course as the commentor is independent assessor without any passionate view, I am inclined to respect her/his statement. I think - author KCM is already stated. How delectable is the latest entropical version!!

Bold textThis is information about an institution. why delete. rather more information may be solicited about this institution whose website is www.niapune.com - smohapatra


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Cherava[edit]

Apparently he's a soldier that died. Tragic, but hardly an encyclopedic subject, especially given that Wikipedia is not a memorial. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, concur with nomination. Ianb 22:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nomination. (Bjorn Tipling 23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The loss of over 2,000 US military men and women in Iraq is very sad but the Wikipedia is not going to have an individual page for each of them. ♠DanMS 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this person has not received the notable degree of press coverage that George Alexander (US Army soldier) has. Yamaguchi先生 03:40, 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 speedy deleted (attack page) - Mailer Diablo 08:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Garside[edit]

Hoax from the pen of the same nameless Oxford kid that gave us Samuel Gartland. Get rid of it good. Pilatus 13:27, 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 17:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Night Of The Were-Owl (Camp Lazlo)[edit]

Nevermind that this article is, as of the nomination, bordering on gibberish. (If someone else doesn't do so, I'll clean it up to readability myself.) Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a guide to every single episode of every single series. Camp Lazlo isn't a particularly influential, important, or long-running series, and dozens of new episodes of similarly uninfluential series are made every single day.

I'm aware that there are already a numer of (mostly stubby) articles on episodes of Camp Lazlo; instead of making a mass-nomination, I'm nominating this as a test case. Please don't cite "Well, so-and-so Camp Lazlo episode isn't up for deletion." Rest assured, if there's consensus to delete here, I'll go to the effort of making a mass-nom of the remaining ones. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Pilatus 15:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dlyons493 Talk 15:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Even if we wanted Wikipedia to keep articles on every episode of every television series (which I don't), there isn't a single word from this article that could be kept as is in an encyclopedic article about this episode. --Metropolitan90 17:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I STRONGLY support episode summaries on wikipedia, but there is simply no way to salvage this page. --InShaneee 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to a new article like List of Episodes of Camp Lazlo or Episode Guide for Camp Lazlo, following cleanup. The stub we have here right now sucks, but I do think there's a place on Wikipedia for episode information for even comparatively minor TV series. -Colin Kimbrell 03:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now and Forever: The Very Best of CrystalCherry[edit]

Non-notable album from an non-notable artist. See this page for another ongoing debate. Bjelleklang - talk 19:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's just a track list for a nn singer. Thelb4 19:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Stu 19:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Kurt Shaped Box 21:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even beyond the probable NN status of the artist in question, I'm pretty sure that the community standards have decided against articles for greatest hits collections. Best of luck to Ms. Burns, regardless.-Colin Kimbrell 03:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vulturell 05:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 03:32, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance[edit]

No useful content. Think this step was missed by original nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry - the procedure is a bit different from the German Wikipedia wher I usually write. Thanx. --BarbD 17:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't assert any importance and has been like that for half a year now. Pilatus 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no discussion of theory, no background on authors, no real purpose other than to promote the title. This is just really weak. Stu 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn book sub-stub. Pete.Hurd 19:51, 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 1, 2, 3...uhhh....3k, 3d, 4m...no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC) merge, after uncovering some sockpuppet votes. - Mailer Diablo 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Field[edit]

Delete A non-notable, red-linked field. Thelb4 17:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with the school's article. Devotchka 18:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this one-sentence article into Interlochen Center for the Arts and delete. I don’t think a redirect is necessary. It’s hard to imagine anyone going to an encyclopedia to look up “Opera Field.” ♠DanMS 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very notable, very important piece of history. Are we going to delete the article for Washington Mall and the Plain of Troy, too? (unsigned vote by Linguistixuck)
  • Keep I was for deleting, but you're right. Are we gonna do away with Fenway Park and Yankee Stadium, too? (unsigned vote by 128.197.244.46)
    • This is just a sports field at a school. We don't need every school's sports field on Wikipedia. By the way, please sign votes with ~~~~. Thelb4 21:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Interlochen Center for the Arts -- Longhair | Talk 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comparing this with Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium is more than just a little silly. Denni☯ 04:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete anything here the article or an argument. This field is not a sports field at some random school-- it is a field where concerts have been played by everyone from Norah Jones to Josh Groban to Film Dialog. Plus, Norah Jones played frisbee there!!! (second unsigned vote by 128.197.244.46)
  • Merge into Interlochen Center for the Arts and redirect. If and when there is sufficient material to warrant an article of its own, then it can be separated out.User:Bkonrad 13:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does it really hurt to keep this? It is an important spot where concerts have been given by famous people and Norah Jones played frisbee there. Quoth the "what Wikipedia is not page": "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability".... maybe the red links are stupid and should be de-linked, but this is an important spot-- maybe not washington mall-- but still a site worthy of an article, especially given that there is NO PRACTICAL LIMIT. Thank you. (unsigned vote by Operafield defender)
  • Comment - I'm sorry if this comment shouldn't go here, but at what point do we actually act on these proposals and how? How about we add a temporary counter to the article code and see how many hits it gets? Would a photo make it look more legit? (unsigned comment by Operafield defender)
    • Comment - A page remains on this list (Articles for Deletion) for one week, at which point, if there's a consensus to delete, it gets deleted, otherwise, it stays. Seeing as your username is "Operafield defender" and you announce on your userpage that you created the account to keep this particular article from being deleted, you might be referred to a page called WP:SOCK - I suggest you check it out now. Oh, and a photo couldn't hurt the article, although it might not save it either. The best way to improve the article is to add verifiable facts that have been reported by other media sources (please see our verifiability policy), and citing those sources. One more thing, please sign comments on talk pages by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~ -GTBacchus 23:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So far, the voting is at 3 for delete, 3 for merge and 3 for keep (not including 128.197.244.46's second vote). If 128.197.244.46 is not allowed to vote, there's only 2 for keep, and if Operafield defender is not allowed, it is 1 keep. Let's make it clear: who here who has voted is allowed to vote? Thelb4 08:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. --Carnildo 22:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as suggested above, article is about nn subject. Pete.Hurd 19:00, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Poker[edit]

Advertising. JLaTondre 23:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is one of the most popular gambling sites on the Internet, and (I believe) they are a major sponsor of the WSOP. Article needs to be rewritten to be less POV but that's it. Andrew Levine 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large online poker sites are very notable.Nicodemus75 01:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More research should have been done before a deletion nomination - David Gerard 17:45, 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, minus sockpuppet votes. (2k, 5d) - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PAEE[edit]

Spanish text adventure, article apparently created by the game's author. Doesn't seem very notable. Its original Spanish version, es:PAEE, is also on Articles for Deletion at the Spanish Wikipedia, with what seems like 8 votes for deletion and 6 votes for keeping. Weak delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete unless evidence of notability beyond what is in the current version of the article is provided. Googling the full name, "Primera Aventura Experimental y Extraña" shows a total of 8 pages, of which 1 is our article and 3 are by the game's author; of the 4 remaining, 1 is a page about the game, 2 each have a single link to that page about the game, and the 1 left has a single sentence about it. -- AJR | Talk 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. First of all, I'm the one who've created this english article on the first place, and also fixed the spanish one (which sucked) to be closer to meeting wikipedia's criteria. So let's make it clear: I am _not_ the author of the game. Now, why do I think it should be kept? Or rather... why did I place this here on the first place? Because I think it's a notable game on the (not to offend anybody) very small world of amateur spanish-language text adventure games genre, and it's also remarkable to how many computer languages has been rewritten, and for how many platforms it has been compiled.Rvalles 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are probably very out of touch with a current IF community. There is a lot of Spanish IF games. Your one is not notable a bit.  Grue  20:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your one? This game is not mine in any way, and I've been clear about that in the parent post. Please take your time to read what I say before trying answering to me.Rvalles 02:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is verifiable, and potentially useful for the reason that Rvalles spells out. We gain nothing by deleting this, and loose information that someone interested in text adventures might want. Trollderella 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think like Rvalles: we don't gain anything erasing it. KiBo 02:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (only edit)[reply]
  • Delete. Google demonstrates a singular lack of notability, and Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. Actually, what we gain by deleting it is a little more confidence on the part of our users that we are discriminating in the information we take in. Denni☯ 04:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument for deletion as read above states that the article should be deleted because "googling" for the article topic results in few webpage results. It seems to me that deleting this article from wikipedia would only resolve in less information being available about this game. It also appears that wikipedia is one of the few locations that hosts any english text about this game. Making the english article very valuable to the internet as a whole. It doesn't appear wikipedia has anything to gain from the deletion of this article except for maybe some small drive space. If wikipedia only hosted information that could be found other places that would make wikipedia less of a resource to everyone. JonathanW 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet)[reply]
    • comment One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that conent needs to be verifiable, that is, that Wikipedia does only host information that can be found in other places. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable encyclopeadia, then readers need to be able to check the accuracy of our content, which means that there need to be external sources for our information. -- AJR | Talk 11:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there are a few, you only need one to verify it - it's not about how many times you can verifiy it. Trollderella 17:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Correct and unique information of course should be saved. Cyberakuma 05:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC) (only edit)[reply]
  • Delete There are dozens of text adventures produced each year, in Spanish as well. I don't see how this one is notable. Notice also the sockpuppets above.  Grue  20:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppets? Do you have reasons to think so? Explain them to us.Rvalles 01:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens a year, good grief. How will we cope! Trollderella 23:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if this one survives, I'm creating an article about my game, which finished a whopping 29th place in IFComp 2004.  Grue  21:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stack Overflow? I get about 100 Google hits, I wouldn't object to a brief article about it, although it might be better off being merged into an article on the 2004 IFComp (which we don't have yet) although frankly I wonder how much verifiable material there's going to be about it without original research - let's get to work though! Trollderella 17:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable (therefore unencyclopedic) + sockpuppet abuse. Wikipedia gains a higher level of quality as a body of knowledge by deletion of non-notable material. Bwithh 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it just gets less material. Trollderella 20:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe our credibility is called into question by some when they find articles that are clearly non-encyclopedic. Recall that one thing Wikipedia is not is is an indiscriminate collection of information. Denni☯ 02:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this isn't indiscriminate. Also, what is appropriate for an encyclopedia is a subjective decision. Our credability is called into question when we delete valid topics because we are not interested in them. Trollderella 17:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "all of that by the cooperation of tens of people." - indicates to me that this is a minor, non-notable project CDC (talk) 18:44, 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 Redirect to Party. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Party Pooper[edit]

Article seems to have been created as vandalism. I don't see any way to replace it with anything beyond a dicdef.-- GraemeL (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I changed it to a redirect. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parys Sylver[edit]

Vanity page. 1 Google hit. Kurt Shaped Box 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Kurt Shaped Box 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 17:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7; no assertion of notability. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Snerk. Very, very vain. Devotchka 18:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Stu 20:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Another one of these? Jezz. Vulturell 05:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. ERcheck 05:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete vanity. --Davril2020 22:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE

Poosa[edit]

Band, does not seem to meet notability criteria at WP:MUSIC Tempshill 03:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Their album German Preoccupation is listed at AllMusic, but that's where it ends -- I don't think they make big enough a blip on the radar. -- Captain Disdain 06:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They have a record to their credit but don't seem to meet WP:NMG. If kept, the article would need to be cleaned up in terms of NPOV.Capitalistroadster 06:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Their two albums are listed on over 15 music stores and sites, including Tower Records, Apple's iTunes, Limewire, and others. .User:Mutai 11:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to point out that this in itself is not yet enough to pass the criteria set forth in WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure that just getting two albums listed on a bunch of sites is a sign of actual notability. -- Captain Disdain 02:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mutai. Thelb4 19:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the article was lifted from cdbaby.com, the band's website does not indicate any albums, tours, or shows since 2003. WP:MUSIC is a close call, but not being able to verify backing from any considerable indie label, I say delete. --anetode¹ ² ³ 03:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.The article was written by Poosa for submission to CD Baby, therefore it was not "lifted". It is a legimate description of the artist. Also, her longtime association with Nick Cave can not be overlooked.User:Mutai 11:57, 03 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. *drew 05:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Mutai's only edits have been on Poosa, Sewer baby, Mike Etoll, and Image:Lunginsewer.jpg, and the delete discussions for the three articles. The Lunginsewer image has also been marked as a possible copyright violation. - Dalbury 11:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - Still see no point to User:Dalbury's comment's on my edits. User:Mutai 17:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dalbury 11:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as drew Marcus22 13:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.You can't understand the Minneapolis music scene without an appreciation of the band Poosa.User:Booty 15:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (This is the user's second edit, the first being in the deletion discussion for the related article Sewer Baby. - Dalbury 00:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. - Once again Dalbury has nothing of use to say User:Mutai 22:43, 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 Keep -Greg Asche (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy[edit]

  • Orphaned AFD from 29 October - listing corrected. Eddie.willers 01:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd say delete, but we generally keep movies on here...and this IS a movie. It's on IMDB and everything. Therefore, keep, but needs to be labeled as a stub. Devotchka 02:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the stub tag was a good idea. The jokes about "expanding" it practically write themselves. -Colin Kimbrell 03:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd never heard of it either, but it seems to be a legitimate movie that's worthy of an entry. -Colin Kimbrell 03:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real movie which I have actually seen in an actual theatre. flowersofnight 03:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree about marking it as a stub too. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep. Legitimate movie. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If nothing else check Amazon. 23skidoo 06:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, real movie, as verified by the IMDB page. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This actually got relatively extensive indie coverage as I recall. A legitimate flick. Marskell 15:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Movie and documentary information are useful encylopedia entries, and I see Wikipedia has thousands of movies already documented. Revised Edition 19:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jeremy is, for better or worse, a unique star in the porn kingdom. The movie is legit. If y'all will excuse me, now that I have supported anything Ron Jeremy, I feel the need to go poke my eyes out. Stu 20:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was a good movie, I saw it in a real theater. Jessamyn 22:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; unjustified nomination. MCB 00:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turgidly strong keep. Almost a speedy - nomination does not really express a valid reason for deletion, as the average Wikipedian has not heard of every article-worthy mainstream movie that exists. BD2412 T 02:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "I've never heard of this movie" is an odd reason to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a real movie with some degree of notoriety in the adult film community. Jtmichcock 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't tell me much...not encyclopedia quality. If not deleted it should atleast be merged with the Ron Jeremy article. Chooserr
  • Keep as I've seen the movie... well put together and has gotten some buzz... is on IMDB... etc. Entertaining movie too Nick Catalano (Talk) 23:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nakamatj 19:15, 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.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Light[edit]

This entry is almost a year old, and reads in its entirety: Positive Light is a group of DJs. I can't find further information about the topic, but I'll admit that I don't have a lot to go on here. This is near a speedy for lack of context. Joyous (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably a speedy. No attempt to establish notability. Devotchka 16:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content. Karol 17:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If no one has expanded it in ten months, it’s not likely to be expanded any time soon. If it turns out to be a worthwhile subject, it can be re-created. ♠DanMS 17:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete., as non-notable. Carioca 21:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and rename. I've moved it to Media preservation as this best describes what the article is going for. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation Issues[edit]

Reads more like a magazine article for scrapbookers than an encyclopedia article. Some sort of article about preserving documents and such would be welcome, but this isn't it. tregoweth 22:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preservation is a growing issue. With natural and man made disasters left right and center, as well as changing technology (making digital material obsolete), preservation of photographs, documents and other cultural items should be very important to everyone. An informative encyclopedia article on this topic would be very welcome.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.115.191 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Transwiki to Wikibooks; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. I am not comfortable deleting the article based on just two opinions, especially when there is a dissenting voice, albeit anonymous, and it is not completely obvious to me that the article should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to fix capitalization. And it reads like it's copy/pasted from a book, could someone check for copyvio please? Other than that, tag for cleanup, scrap the obvious to-do sections and keep. Radiant_>|< 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this page was largely copied from this site http://www.yourliferemembered.com/ (tab general info/preservation issues). That page has a "permission to copy blurb" reading "This article maybe freely copied, modified and reprinted....just give credit to this site and where possible provide a link back to this site."FRS 19:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Worthwhile information, I think. Wikipedia already has articles on Art conservation and restoration and Film preservation. There may be more info somewhere on preservation of old paper documents, but I couldn’t find it at the moment. I don’t particularly like this title “Preservation Issues” but I can’t think what else to call it. Agree with Radiant that the title needs to be fixed for capitalization. ♠DanMS 01:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (merge the most useful information, without the how-to stuff) to archive. Preservation Issues is not a meaningful name for what this article is about. Chick Bowen 01:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DanMS. I couldn't agree more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful article. Needs a new title, I agree. Devotchka 02:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. Could be merged with Digital preservation.. frankh 10:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and cleanup, as per Radiant! AJR | Talk 13:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment The title of this article bothers me because it seems loosey goosey; "Preservation Issues" is too broad. Do I think that this conceptually need on Wikipedia? Most certainly. But preservation issues takes in too many fields that are simular and dissimular at the same time. Document archival techniques are different than restoration techniques on fine art. There is a clear difference between a "historical renovation" and a full blown Restoration of buildings. So if the article is to survive, I feel that it would be most useful in as a hub to the topics (spokes), so to speak. Stu 14:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: Preservation has links to all of the types of preservation, why not just make sure that every category is covered and let the preservation article serve as a hub? It looks like we need a paper document preservation article, at the least, so we could use the content from this article as a starting point, as it needs to be rewritten. If you don't want to use the preservation article as the hub, and want the title to be more specific, I would suggest "historical record preservation", "document preservation", "archive preservation" or working it into the archive article somehow. Finally, we should make sure that the articles we already have cover everything mentioned in this article. -- Kjkolb 16:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment- I went ahead and started an article for Archival science since its a disclipline and it wasn't dealt with in the article archive Stu 19:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. I'm not sure what's useful in this article: it doesn't say anything more than "paper fades, hard disks crash, and you won't be able to read your CDs in 30 years even if they don't rot before then". Where's the useful information here? If it described actual real preservation techniques, I'd say "keep" without a second thought - but it doesn't. — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly move to Wikibooks...it almost reads like instructions on how to preserve certain items rather than information on the phenomenon of document preservation. Either way, it needs to be edited so it's not written in second-person. Kurt Weber 00:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. It sounds more like an instruction manual than an encyclopedia article. No need to fix it up when it would already fit perfectly over there. Karmafist 16:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I edited out the how-to stuff and left it a reasonably encyclopedic article. Note that it still has to be merged or renamed as above. Chick Bowen 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle, or merge to Archival science. Certainly much work needed, but a good start. Denni☯ 02:53, 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 as copyvio. Gamaliel 23:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Syed Ali Akbar[edit]

Bio of a professor. 'Sources' include an obituary and his own personal diary. Notability shaky at best. Delete as vanity/obituary.--InShaneee 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems notable, at least in Hyderabad. Help counter the systemic bias in Wikipedia.--Ezeu 23:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Residence Hall Director is pretty notable in Rock Island. He started a program to recycle old computers for environmental reasons. Everyone for 15 miles who reads a newspaper knows...do you see where I'm going here? --InShaneee 23:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup mostly wikify. Notable Pakistani professor with three books to his credit. People who receive an obituary are often notable and this appears to be the case here. Capitalistroadster 23:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a copyvio. I wish people would do some rudimentary research before a knee jerk keep vote, such as, oh I don't know, following the links provided by the anon editor... Gamaliel 23:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project Responder[edit]

Vanity article about a pickup truck customized into a fire truck. Nothing particularly notable, innovative or out of ordinary about it. Delete --Pc13 17:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure if Micnet wrote this article about his own truck, if it is I would not object to userfying this article. Nonetheless, this is definitely not encyclopedically notable, delete if no userfication is requested. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 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 delete. --Celestianpower háblame 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qlock[edit]

no apparent purpose other than advertisement BeteNoir 09:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 09:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 12:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ad, pointless. -- Foofy 14:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riomhaire Research[edit]

Almost notable for gaving 0 (that's ZERO) Googles

  • Delete Dlyons493 Talk 02:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn. btm 08:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable
  • Delete highly nn.
  • Delete The meaning of riomhaire in gaelic makes this whole article suspicious ("computer") - though admittedly, people do name their companies after what they do. It is also non-notable. --eleuthero 01:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep The Google test says nothing at all (many companies won't be found through Google). What's missing a stub template and some internal links (which I added now). I even did a thorough research in the internet and found the company's homepage (through MetaCrawler, a meta search engine): www.riomhaire.com which makes this company insofar notable as they try (unusally) to use open source software. JM.Beaubourg 00:33, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivendell Christian Communities[edit]

Searching for "Rivendell Christian Communities" clocks up three Google hits. Delete, unless the imprtance of this particular congregation is lined out. Pilatus 14:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stu 20:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I started writing a paper on them is because, I wanted to check out how the church community at large treated and welcomed societies misfits. This was one of the first Christian groups I saw that seemed to truely be living this out. This is a small part of a more relational movement called organic churches Groups like this are sprouting up every where and are part of a movement, some have named the Emergent Church. The emergent church is not any one group or leader; its a spontaneous church movement not ran by any religious group or leader. - J. D. Hunt
I'm new to this Wikipedia thing. I guess I should have read more about the process and rules. I thought I knew enough to start. I am trying to chronicle a new phenmenon in Christianity that has no leader ang goes by or has different names: 'the post modern movement', 'emergent church', 'organic church' and the list goes on. Some of these names are dubbed on them from within and some from without. This movement is something that I saw that was not represented in the Wikipedia database of knowledge. In a movement with no leaders or unified body, made up of individual expressions,the individual expressions are part of the informational structure of the movement. Example: like when covering the Association of Vineyard Churches individual people, like John Wimber and Lonnie Frisbee are mentioned, and individual churches are mentioned like Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. I guess I started with the individual pages first and not the movement pages first. I guess I did it ass backwards - J> D. Hunt
If you want to write an article on this, and have it accepted, the most important single thing you can do is collect good verifiable source citations. Wikipedia does not accept original research. As far as possible, find newspaper stories, books that have been written about your topic, etc. and try to tell as much of your story as possible in the form of source quotations, with connecting material. For example, the passage above ("I am trying to chronicle... structure of the movement") is a problem, because Wikipedia is not a place for you or anyone else to "chronicle" things. On the other hand, you can say "an emergent church, according to A. B. Christian, is a church which thus-and-such-and-so-and-so. Other observers use other names. For example, D. E. Filosopher prefer to call them them organic churches because their structure etc. etc"
Also, if you create an account (free and anonymous), you can put almost anything you like on your personal user page. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P. P. S. What you describe sure sounds like the Quakers to me! Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I apoligize I couldn't find stuff on emergent church, I guess because I was using caps E vs e in looking for emergent, but other catigories i've tried come up nil'.
  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk 22:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn religious group or movement. MCB 01:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'nn religious group or movement' mean. (J. D. Hunt 02:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

"Not notable." I'm afraid that in Articles for Deletion people encounter repetitive situations and start to use various abbreviations. Now "notability itself" is a controversial issue within Wikipedia, there are no firm criteria (and some Wikipedians who do not think notability should even be considered at all). Regardless, in the particular case of Rivendell Christian Communities, if it has been mentioned in e.g. a magazine or newspaper article, or a book about emergent churches, or something like that, it is to your advantage cite sources saying so. Read our article on what an encyclopedia is, and then make the best case you can as to why an encyclopedia needs an article on this group. If the only reason for an article on them is that you personally are trying to write an essay on emergent churches, that won't fly. However, if someone who has authored a print publication, or an obviously significant website, has mentioned them as an interesting example of an emergent church, that carries some weight. (No guarantees here, I'm just expressing my personal observations about what affects opinions in an AfD discussion.) Dpbsmith (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
based on ceejayoz personal statements on being liberal and some of his blog postings on his personal site could he be biased against Christianity.
So wait, if you're liberal, you're biased against Christianity? Sounds like you're the one who has bias. FCYTravis 03:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a liberal, I'm a libertarian. Liberals look to big government to solve all of society's woe's, and libertarians believe the government should stay out of almost everything. Libertarians don't believe in any handouts from the government, and that everybody out to be self-supporting. (J. D. Hunt 06:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Someone mentioned signing up, I initially wasn't sure what that was about. I will sign up. I am not affiliated with any of these groups other than an aquaintence. I thought the Richmond, VA aspect of the emergent church, as well as, other regions in the U.S. needed to be chronicled, as they are all unique facets of the whole movement. - J. D. Hunt testing sign up (J. D. Hunt 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
J. D. Hunt, the convention is to indent replies, and to indent them further than the text they're replying to. You indent text by typing colons at the beginning of the line. Each colon represents one additional indentation level, so if you're replying to something with two colons, being your text by typing three colons, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivendell Christian Fellowship[edit]

Another Richmond, VA congregation. It clocks up five Google hits. Pilatus 14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This may be a legit church, but it reads like PRcruft. Stu 20:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this Wikipedia thing. I guess I should have read more about the process and rules. I thought I knew enough to start. I am trying to chronicle a new phenmenon in Christianity that has no leader ang goes by or has different names: 'the post modern movement', 'Emergent Church', 'organic church' and the list goes on. Some of these names are dubbed on them from within and some from without. This movement is something that I saw that was not represented in the Wikipedia database of knowledge. In a movement with no leaders or unified body, made up of individual expressions,the individual expressions are part of the informational structure of the movement. Example: like when covering the Association of Vineyard Churches individual people, like John Wimber and Lonnie Frisbee are mentioned, and individual churches are mentioned like Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship. I guess I started with the individual pages first and not the movement pages first. I guess I did it ass backwards - J. D. Hunt

P.s. I'm rusty in my acedemic writing, sorry it reads so poorly.

p.s. I apoligize I couldn't find stuff on emergent church, I guess because I was using caps E vs e in looking for emergent, but other catigories i've tried come up nil'.

Hi there, articles on individual congregations are usually removed quickly, as they tend have little to say for themselves and are usually part of larger movements. By the way, there is an entry for the Emerging Church, why not contribute to that one? By the way, signing up for a username is fast. Pilatus 21:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

based on his personal views stated on his website could could ceejayoz be biased against Christianity

  • Comment J.D. Hunt (writing under 68.57.33.91) could you please explain this comment? Stu 02:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mentioned signing up, I initially wasn't sure what that was about. I will sign up. I am not affiliated with any of these groups other than an aquaintence. I thought the Richmond, VA aspect of the emergent church, as well as, other regions in the U.S. needed to be chronicled, as they are all unique facets of the whole movement. - J. D. Hunt

  • Delete, nn local church. MCB 01:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against people with a liberal position. I myself am a libertarian. But, as we all know, every one of us has a point of view (or a.k.a a bias). We should try not to use it when writing, which is a hard thing for anybody to do, no matter how principled we are. my experience and study has shown that typically people with a liberal bias tend to dislike Christianity. It is posible for bias in this Wikipedia Proposition. Sorry, I wasn't logged in at the time of the comment, but that is because it was my girlfriend on another commputer in our network reading the comments. Thanks for assuming. (J. D. Hunt 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment Since you are new to Wikipedia, I really have to sugesst that you read through some of the base rules that we have on the, including the article Wikipedia:No personal attacks Stu 13:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am now reading the rules, when i have time. By the way, to state that you believe someone has a bias towards a topic, based on their self discription and private statements, is not a personal attack it's an observation. An attack would be to call somebody 'stupid' or an 'idiot'. All I did was to make an observation based on my opinion. In discussion forums are peoples opinions against the rules. Is there only partial freedom of speech in here. (J. D. Hunt 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Response to Jdhunt Again, I strongly suggest that you read the rules regarding No personal attacks and the proper places for these types of discussions, which are usually held on talk pages. This particular page doesn't exist to discuss your perception of someone elses suppossed political beliefs or their qualifications to voice an opinion on the merit of the article at hand; this AfD page exists to gather votes for the article itself. Stu 13:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the No Personal Attacks Section, and it caused me to have more questions. Here are my questions. I'm not saying either scenario are my case (and I believe they are not). Here I go. What do you do if you really think someone is bringing a bias, based on their views, in their actions towards an issue or administration duty? (or abuse) And, secondly, what if someone thought they were being persecuted, based on their beliefs, by another member or group? (or abuse) Is there a way to take recorse reguarding that kind of abuse, or does wikipedia allow that, because it considers stating something like that a personal attack. What are the rules and where are the lines drawn. (J. D. Hunt 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete advertisement for a nn local church. Pete.Hurd 19:50, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Altman[edit]

A medical doctor with nothing to distinguish him from any other doctor. BrainyBroad 05:24, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Blumenfeld[edit]

"esteemed member of the arts community at Johns Hopkins" = student. BrainyBroad 05:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable bio. should be speedy delete. ERcheck 05:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Big man on campus but not so far outside it. Doesn't meet WP:BIO.Capitalistroadster 06:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 08:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Wayward Talk 12:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How did you finally find me!? Oh well. I had a year up there, it was a good run. royblumy 07:51, 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 NO CONSENSUS

Samantha Aber[edit]

Subject of a soon-to-be-forgotten spat at UNE that is of no interest to anyone outside the university and of little interest to a university member. Pilatus 14:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN, vanity. Devotchka 16:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As she is President of the Students Association at the University of New England, she is of reasonable interest there. However, she is not currently sufficiently notable outside that campus to warrant an article. However, given the fact that many Liberals involved in student politics have graduated to electoral politics in later years she may well become notable in the future. For now, Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable student politician. -- Cnwb 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the original author just tried to blank the article. I guess we can count that as another Delete vote... Owen× ☎ 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable -- Ian ≡ talk 00:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; only "notability" is a minor tempest at a university. MCB 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aber is notable as the only Liberal student president in office anywhere in Australia and for the frequent controversies, which have made the national news several times. Ambi 06:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking for her being mentioned in the national news, hoping she would be more controversial than the everyday, garden-variety student politician, after all the Liberal club is associated with the Australian Liberal party, and the accusation of corruption and financial mismanagement sounds pretty severe. Now Google comes up with about 100 hits, of which 36 are unique when looking for her name on English pages ("aber" happens to mean "but" in German). Most of these hits are university minutes. Pilatus 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Factiva shows that she's made the news nine times over the last year (and I know for a fact there has been more), which isn't bad for someone of her position in my book. Moreover, she is the direct focus of four critical articles in The Australian. I'm at another university several hundred kilometres away; her notability extends well beyond UNE. Ambi 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Factiva requires a subscription, as does the archive of The Australian. What do those sources say about her, does she pass the five-year test, or are the goings-on at UNE just another case of extra-shambolic administration at a student government? When I was at uni we were treated to a very similar spectacle - the previous incumbents had been in power for 20 years or so and were thoroughly corrupt, the challengers threatened to sweep out the muck with the proverbial iron broom and then turned out to be just as corrupt and incompetent. In short, it was an exercise in striking poses, nothing more. Pilatus 14:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What five-year test? Aber is notable because of events in this one year alone; her reign has become nationally notorious. Ambi 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep going by what Ambi said -- Chuq 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ambi. Who knew the stakes of student politics included getting your Wikipedia article AfD'd? ～J.K. 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep if it can be expanded and freed from any WP:NOR vios. Why are her views a minority? Show me on the article. Add some links about why she's notable. Right now it can be salvaged, but it has to evolve to survive at this point, its current incarnation is not acceptable. Karmafist 16:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no NOR issues here. Everything in that article can be sourced to stories in the national (not local) media. Ambi 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (attack page) - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gartland[edit]

No trace of this "elusive alumnus" of Corpus Christi who published "seminal works on ... the benefits of Spartan homosexuality to their complexion" can be found in the catalogue of the British Library. Shame hoaxes are not a speedy criterion, so it gets its five days of fame here. Pilatus 13:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just as awful as the other one. Devotchka 16:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: are these attack pages? -- Kjkolb 18:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly, the Oxford website tells that they are both at Corpus. Pilatus 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom Stu 20:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as attack page. MCB 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gone again! - Mailer Diablo 08:29, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Screaming[edit]

Garage band vanity. Pilatus 02:45, 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 speedy redirect to Shaamans. --Celestianpower háblame 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shaamans_(band)[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 -Greg Asche (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Maqbool[edit]

copied contents of previously afd/deleted article on United Detergents; goal seems to be commercial content ERcheck 21:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like an ad, and should be deleted per WP:NOT Bjelleklang - talk 21:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 21:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 3rd attempt by this guy and his company. Is there some way we can block him? Devotchka 22:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. This one's easy. Gsd97jks 23:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page was blanked by anon user 80.92.52.44, who is the same that started the Shahid Maqbool article Bjelleklang - talk 01:50, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Situs (band)[edit]

More good old band vanity. Zero allmusic. Article started out as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 05:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skritch[edit]

Dictdef, nn fandom Dlyons493 Talk 01:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete also wrong - it's the sound of fingernails on a blackboard as every schoolboy knows. Dlyons493 Talk 02:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's also a common action that college students will do to each other to offer comfort, etc., independent of fandoms. No vote either way from me, just wanted to offer more background. Janet13 06:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the non-notable neologism. -- Captain Disdain 06:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki since it seems to be more of a wictionary item--and I would find it difficult to suggest that a word that shows up in early Disney cartoons (chalkboard scratching onomatopoeia) is a neologism.--eleuthero 01:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, if it's that old, then it's definitely not a neologism. Fair enough. That said, it's still not notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Quite suitable for Wiktionary, though, so transwiki's fine with me, as long as it goes away from here... -- Captain Disdain 09:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not in any dictionary. I have heard the word used to mention the sound made when scratching, but this definition seems unverifiable. If it were a proper definition, it belongs in Wiktionary. -- Foofy 14:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Nakamatj 19:17, 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

Snow Borne Sorrow[edit]

Seems like a non-notable album by a non-notable group. Lots of superfluous and POV content, possibly bordering on vanity. The musicians themselves (Nine Horses) don't even have an article. PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:23, 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 BJAODN'--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suebee stalker[edit]

Delete; nn local college lore. MCB 07:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BJAODN. Nice story.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No useful Google hits. NN. Devotchka 16:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN per Shreshth91. Thelb4 19:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and howsabout we save BJAODN for things that are, well, funny? Denni☯ 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Um, yeah, what Denni said. How is this even remotely funny? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Great story, this is hilarious. Or just leave it, now that the background info is there. This may be useful to someone. DeckardCain


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

The result of the debate was DELETE

Tahir Sohail[edit]

Not notable, and possibly an attempt to interlink, and to provide credibility for United Detergents and Shahid Maqbool. Bjelleklang - talk 21:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 21:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete" per nomination. ERcheck 21:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Television Movies That Aired on HBO[edit]

Delete - this and this only have one item in the list. There are so many TV movies that it would be almost impossible to list all the ones that have been on a certain television channel! Thelb4 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completley pointless. chowells 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Devotchka 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete information not useful. Chemturion 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A comprehensive list like this would likely have tens of thousands of entries, and thus completely useless. And if not comprehensive, what’s the point? ♠DanMS 00:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Television Movies That Aired on NBC[edit]

Delete - this and this only have one item in the list. There are so many TV movies that it would be almost impossible to list all the ones that have been on a certain television channel! Thelb4 20:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completley pointless. chowells 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless Chemturion 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A comprehensive list like this would likely have at least 50,000 entries, and thus completely useless. And if not comprehensive, what’s the point? ♠DanMS 00:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless listcruft. MCB 01:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terror of the Black Night / Grim For A Day / Halls of Time[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

  • Delete Dlyons493 Talk 12:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an episode article, but delete unless someone can bring it up to a better standard. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason to delete this. There are plenty articles on Wikipedia summarising episodes of television shows. 13:00, 3 November 2005 (GMT)
  • delete as per nom, this is a spelendid example of totally nonsensical information that the author cannot be bothered to even attempt an explanation of. How is a reader expected to 1) come looking for this information because they want to know more about this topic 2) learn anything at all about the topic once they find this page, or 3) be expected to even know what the topic is is they just stumble across this stub of cruft. Pete.Hurd 19:58, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cliffordsons[edit]

Neither the play nor its author produces a single Google hit. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:04, 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 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cool Kids Club[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Cannot find anything on Google. Perhaps this should even be a speedy delete. A bit iffy 20:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uh, yeah. Cute, but a definite delete. Devotchka 20:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Thelb4 21:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A club of 5 kids. Very close to speedy but probably not quite. ♠DanMS 00:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I agree that every club should have a lawyer and a doctor on its executive. Denni☯ 04:52, 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 Speedy deleted under A1

The Fairly OddParents/SpongeBob crossover[edit]

WP:NOT - see also The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2: The Revenge of Plankton Dlyons493 Talk 02:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Same as the other rumor. Devotchka 02:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A1 as this article contains little or no content other than it is rumor that such a movie will be made sometime between now and 2009. A search for this string achieved no Google hits see [22] so WP:V is a real problem for this article. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The RP Site[edit]

Vanity article about a website, no links in or out. waffle iron 02:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't* I just checked it out and they seem to have 230 members with the leader being CBS Interviewed on it. Weird how it says nothing about that in it though.
  • Delete per nomination. - waffle iron 02:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN. Devotchka 02:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Less than 150 registered users? Doesn't strike me as significant. -- Captain Disdain 06:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just plain website spam, not even wikified well.  Ian13  19:05, 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 article was added again, with absolutely no information to back up the claim. The Kids Aren't Alright 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been added again with the same material --FlareNUKE 23:23, 15 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 Speedy deleted under A1

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2: The Revenge of Plankton[edit]

WP:NOT crystal ball - see also The Fairly OddParents/SpongeBob crossover Dlyons493 Talk 02:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article admits its a rumor. We don't do rumors. Devotchka 02:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under Category A1 as it contains little or no content other that it is a movie that might be released in 2006 or early 2007. A Google search shows little or anything to authenticate this rumour see [23]. It would be best until official announcements are made about a movie are made so that the article contains verifiable material. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No info at all --FlareNUKE 01:25, 14 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 article has been added again with the same material ~~---

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Woohookitty as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This end up[edit]

Delete. Non-notable defunct teenage band. No listing on allmusic.com. No recordings released other than demos. ♠DanMS 00:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Deron Miller. Friday (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is usable with Deron Miller. The groups only claim to fame is that he was in it as they don't meet WP:NMG except for his membership. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I suppose by merge I mean "add a single sentence mentioning this band if you really want to".  :) Friday (talk) 00:29, 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 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson LUTher[edit]

Wikispam: advertisement of a non-notable product. --Ezeu 21:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Ezeu 21:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy A1 Very short articles providing little or no context. Also looks like a (poor) ad. Dlyons493 Talk 21:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad, NN. Devotchka 22:21, 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 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tractate[edit]

Does not tell us what a Tractate is, but is actually a joke posing as one Lars T. 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. - Lars T. 22:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And if it DID tell us what a tractate was, it would belong in Wikdictionary anyway. Devotchka 22:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It’s just an old joke that is probably told in every country. ♠DanMS 00:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a Sufi wisom story - I've merged it to Nasreddin Dlyons493 Talk 12:57, 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 10:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Shell Young[edit]

Notability, I can't find any mention of published works, age seems unlikely for notability. cohesion★talk 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:V and WP:BIO. Fifteen year old poet whose only appearances in a Google search for "Tyler Shell Young" are Wikipedia mirrors where his name has been added see [24] so verifiability is a real problem. Apparently, he is known for his "devotion to the art of writnig" but despite this, doesn't meet the notability criteria under WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 23:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 18:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted ad spam/copyvio

United_Detergents[edit]

Company commercial profile ERcheck 03:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - shameless, blatant advertising. Was initially speedied, but regrettably CSD doesn't cover this kind of exploitation of WP. Owen× ☎ 03:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Previously deleted. - EurekaLott 03:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. I speedied this once. The most blatant advertising I've seen. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it a lot per above. I really hate it when non-csds get speedied, but I'm finding it awfully difficult to complain about this one. —Cryptic (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make this go away if there are no complaints. Not only is this a blatant ad, it's also very likely a copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 05:23, 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 MERGE AND REDIRECT to Five Ws.

Wh-questions[edit]

unencyclopedaic

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

The result of the debate was Result was Redirect to Yan Fu. Saberwyn 01:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Fu[edit]

Article with the correct title "Yan Fu" already exists. Afeng 18:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the correct spelling. Stu 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect - I've merged what little was useful (basically the transwiki links), so this can be closed and the page replaced with a redirect. I'd do it myself if I hadn't participated in the debate. — Haeleth Talk 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y/n questions[edit]

unencyclopedaic

  • Delete Dlyons493 Talk 12:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or expand with a large amount of information, as the article is too small to stay in its current form -- SoothingR 13:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless appropriate merge target is found. Marskell 15:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless merged or expanded. And I don't mean with a longer list of yes-no questions. Perhaps something could be done to discuss yes-no questions in other languages? Eh. Probably a delete. Devotchka 16:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is covered in one sentence in question page. Karol 17:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing useful to merge to question, and this is not the usual name (yes/no question is). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing beyond the apparent here, and nothing more that could be said. Denni☯ 04:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete.

Your mom your dad and shiffy all night[edit]

not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_30&oldid=1081093527"